HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. CHAN MING FAI

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
32265-EN-1996-03-12

THE QUEEN v. CHAN MING FAI

HTML content

HCMA000028/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.28 OF 1996

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
CHAN MING FAIAppellant

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

Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 8 March 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 12 March 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a sentence of 12 months for possession of 0.30 grammes of a mixture containing 0.03 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. In his Reasons for Sentence, the learned Magistrate said this :

"There is ample current authority that the tariff for possession of a very small quantity of heroin hydrochloride is 12 months imprisonment after a plea of guilty : see, for example, R v MAK Sing-fat, Mag. App. 654/1995. In fact, there is justification, in the light of R v CHIU Hung-wong and Another for a sentence in excess of twelve months imprisonment."

The amount dealt with in this case was minute. There was absolutely no risk of the amount passing on to other members of the public. I felt that this was a factor which should have been taken into account. Had it been, the sentence would have been lower. I therefore reduced the sentence to one of six months.

Representation:

Mr Prakash Daryanani, C.C., for Crown

Mr Eric Kwok (D.L.A.) for Appellant

- 2 -

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