HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1986

THE QUEEN v. CHENG KAM MING

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
39029-EN-1986-12-30

THE QUEEN v. CHENG KAM MING

HTML content

CACC000426/1986

1985, No. 426

(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

THE QUEENRespondent
and
CHENG KAM MINGApplicant

______________

Coram: Hon. Li, V.-P., Hon. Power and Hon. Penlington, J.J.

Date of hearing: 30th December 1986

Date of delivery of judgment: 30th December 1986

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Power, J.

1. The applicant was sentenced to 3½ years imprisonment on a charge of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The quantity involved was 58.6 kg. of a mixture containing 10.12 gms. of salts of esters of morphine.

2. The trial judge followed the guidelines in R. v. Chan Chi-ming(1) when sentencing the applicant. The sentence of 3½ years, given the applicant's record and the quantity involved was a perfectly proper one. The applicant now asks for leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence was too severe as he has to support his aged mother and father.

3. There is nothing raised by him which indicates in any way that the trial judge was wrong in imposing the sentence that he did. We do not consider that we can elaborate further upon the matter. The application is without merit and will be dismissed.

Representation:

Mr A.A. Bruce and Mr. Stephen Wong (Crown Prosecutors) for the Respondent Applicant in Person

(1)   [1979] H.K.L.R. 491