HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1996

R. v. CHAN MAN SUM

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
3193-EN-1996-10-31

R. v. CHAN MAN SUM

HTML content

CACC000334/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 334
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
CHAN MAN SUMApplicant

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

 

Coram: Hon Power, Ag C.J., Mortimer and Mayo, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 31 October 1996

Date of judgment: 31 October 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

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

1. The applicant seeks leave to apply against his conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2. Two police officers who were performing anti-narcotic duties in the early hours of the morning of 10 October 1995 observed the applicant acting in what they regarded as being a suspicious manner.

3. They followed him into a restaurant and saw him enter the female toilet. When he emerged from it they stopped him and searched him. They found 140 packets which they suspected contained dangerous drugs. The applicant informed them that this was so.

4. On analysis by the Government Chemist it transpired that the quantity of the mixture found on the applicant was 51.94 grams of a substance containing 16.15 grams of heroin hydrochloride.

5. The applicant did not give evidence at his trial or call any witness.

6. In his grounds of appeal he puts forward five general reasons why he suggested he should not have been convicted.

7. He alleged that the dangerous drugs had been planted on him. He did not however give evidence to this effect at his trial.

8. We can see no reason to interfere with this conviction. The application is dismissed.

(N.P. Power)(Barry Mortimer)(Simon Mayo)
Ag. Chief JusticeJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr Tony Schapel, Consultant for Crown Prosecutor

Chan Man Sum - Applicant in person/present