HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1986

THE QUEEN v. LEE YIU CHUNG

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
40674-EN-1986-08-29

THE QUEEN v. LEE YIU CHUNG

HTML content

HCMA000713/1986

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986, No. 713

(Magistracy)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

 

and

 

LEE YIU-CHUNG

__________________

 

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Macdougall & Mayo, JJ.

Date of Hearing: 29th August 1986

Date of Judgment: 29th August 1986

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. This is an appeal from a sentence imposed by a magistrate. It has been referred to this court by Hopkinson, J.

2. The charge was one of possession of dangerous drugs, the drugs being six tablets of methaqualone, the total weight of the drug itself being 1.3 grammes. The learned magistrate imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment and it is submitted that that is manifestly excessive.

3. We have been asked to lay down a tariff for this type of offence. There is authority for saying that offences of possession of methaqualone should be treated as equivalent to offences of possession of cannabis, and we see no reason to disagree with that view. Beyond that we are not disposed in the present case to lay down any tariff.

                As to the particular offence we are satisfied that the sentence was unnecessarily high and we think that justice will be done if we pass such sentence of imprisonment as will allow the appellant's immediate discharge.

29th August 1986

Representation:

P. Dinan for Appellant.

A. Bruce for Crown.