HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. KO WAH PING

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
32255-EN-1996-03-05

THE QUEEN v. KO WAH PING

HTML content

HCMA001149/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1149 OF 1995

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
KO WAH PINGAppellant

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

Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 28 February 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 5 March 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a sentence of 14 months imposed for possession of dangerous drugs. In his Reasons for Sentence, inter alia, the learned Magistrate said this: "The vicinity where the offence occurred is an area notorious for drug related offences: I am entitled to have regard to this fact, relying upon my knowledge of my area of jurisdiction."

2. The charge here was one of simple possession and not of trafficking. The Magistrate should of course consider the risk factor of the drugs coming into possession of other members of the public. However, it was my view that in the circumstances of this case it was somewhat harsh to take that into account in deciding to increase the level of the Appellant's sentence. I felt that the proper sentence in this case was one of 12 months and I therefore reduced the sentence accordingly.

Representation:

Mr F Veltro, S.C.C., for Crown

Mr Andy Hung (D.L.A.), for Appellant

- 2 -

(J.M. Duffy)
Judge of the High Court