HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1993

R. v. SHUM CHI SHING

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another
2570-EN-1996-04-03

R. v. SHUM CHI SHING

HTML content

CACC000279/1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1993, No. 279
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
SHUM CHI SHINGApplicant

-------------------------

Coram: Hon Mortimer, J.A. and Mayo, J.A.

Date of hearing: 3 April 1996

Date of judgment: 3 April 1996

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him of 14 years' imprisonment for trafficking in dangerous drugs. He was convicted after a trial. The amount of dangerous drugs involved was 676 grams of a mixture containing 325 grams of salts of esters of morphine.

2. The reason given by the applicant for not making the application within the time limit described was that he hoped to be able to prosecute an appeal against his conviction to the Privy Council.

3. Before us he also said that he had insufficient time to be able to prepare an application to appeal against the sentence which was imposed upon him. The explanation or justification which has been given by the applicant is not a valid explanation. We would add that the appeal would have had virtually no prospect of success even if we had been able to entertain it. The application is accordingly dismissed.

(Barry Mortimer)(Simon Mayo)
Justice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr F. Veltro for Crown Prosecutor

SHUM Chi-shing - Applicant in person/present