HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1987

THE QUEEN v. TAM IP CHEUNG

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
28496-EN-1988-01-05

THE QUEEN v. TAM IP CHEUNG

HTML content

HCMA000921/1987

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 921 OF 1987

_____________

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Respondent

and

TAM Ip-cheung

Appellant

______________

Coram: de Basto.

Date of Hearing: 5th January, 1988

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

   

1. The appellant was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely, methagualone. The appellant nave evidence which the learned magistrate rejected. On the other and he said he regard the evidence of the police witnesses as "most convincing" and he accepted their evidence of the version of events. He found that "the evidence of the prosecution witnesses excluded all possibility of doubts on the charges''.

2. I find there is no merit in the appeal against conviction and that appeal is dismissed.

3. As regards the appeal against sentence the learned magistrate said "the guidelines for sentencing a first drug offender with previous convictions for serious offences would be in the region of trio or three years imprisonment.

4. Counsel for the Crown commented that the magistrate was probably referring to guidelines relating to heroin. I agreed.

5. The appellant has no previous convictions for drug offences.

6. The Court of Appeal in Attorney General and Chan Chi-man (1987) HKLR 221 set out guidelines, inter alia, for methaqualone. I appreciate the guidelines relate only to possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

7. The appellant was found guilty of trafficking in 8 tablets of methagualone. Although this was a commercial transaction the quantity of the drug was very small involving 1.S grammes. In my view the sentence of 2 years imprisonment is manifestly excessive (see Mag. App No. 290, of 1987) 1 allow the appeal against sentence to the extent that the sentence is reduced to 6 months imprisonment.

(Gerald de Basto)

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Miss Mary SIN, Crown Counsel for Crown.

Appellant in person.