HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1997

R. v. WONG CHI NUEN

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
16195-EN-1997-03-19

R. v. WONG CHI NUEN

HTML content

HCMA000022/1997

1997, NO. MA 22

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 22 OF 1997

_____________________

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
WONG CHI NUENAppellant

_____________________

 

Coram: Hon Patrick Chan, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 19 March 1997

Date of judgment: 19 March 1997

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to inhaling dangerous drugs and was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment. He and another person were found in a hut inhaling dangerous drugs. He had 14 previous convictions and nine were related to drugs.

2. The magistrate referred to cases of possession of dangerous drugs where the usual tariff would be nine to twelve months' imprisonment after plea and twelve months after trial. He considered inhaling dangerous drugs is similarly as serious as simple possession.

3. In my view, he has applied the correct principle. There was nothing in what the appellant had said which could persuade me that the sentence of eight months on a plea is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. For this reason, I will dismiss the appeal.

(P. Chan)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

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

Appellant in person