HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG HO SANG

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
36073-EN-1996-09-20

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG HO SANG

HTML content

HCMA000947/1996

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 1996, No. 947
 Magistracy Appeal

BETWEEN  
 THE QUEENRespondent
 and 
 CHEUNG HO SANGAppellant

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

Coram: Hon Mayo JA in Court (sitting as an additional High Court Judge)

Date of hearing: 20 September 1996

Date of Judgment: 20 September 1996

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Mayo JA:

1. The appellant appeals against his conviction for possession of dangerous drugs. According to the prosecution case the appellant was seen by two police officers sitting on the stairs in a Wilson Carpark on 4 March 1996. He was searched and a small quantity of dangerous drugs was found on his person. According to the police officers he claimed that the dangerous drugs were for his own consumption.

2. At his trial before the learned magistrate Mr Holmes the appellant gave evidence to the effect that the dangerous drugs had been planted on him by the officers.

3. The magistrate was faced with a direct conflict of evidence. For the reasons he gave the magistrate accepted the evidence of the officers and rejected the appellant's evidence. It is pertinent to observe that when Mr Holmes was sentencing the appellant, the appellant stated that the dangerous drugs had been for his own use. There is nothing in what the appellant had said before me that satisfies me that the findings of the magistrate should in any way be interfered with. The application is dismissed.

  

  

 (Simon Mayo)
 sitting as an additional High Court Judge

  

Representation:

Mr Arthur Luk for Crown Prosecutor

Cheung Ho Sang - Appellant in person/present