THE QUEEN v. CHAN LAM-KEE AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. CHAN LAM-KEE AND OTHERS

The judge convicted because the statutory presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance applied given the location and nature of the drugs and keys, the defendants' admissions under s65C, and because the defence explanation (third-party account) was found inherently improbable and failed to rebut the presumptions on the balance of probabilities; the judge also found the only reasonable inference as to the poison was knowledge and possession and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. CHAN LAM-KEE AND OTHERS
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant (1st): CHAN Lam kee; Defendant (2nd): LAM Wing-pun; Defendant (3rd): TSE Mui-chi; Defendant (4th): Sae Lee Somruethai; Defendant (5th): LAU Yuk-fat; Defendant (6th): LEE Lai-king
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 1982
Case Number
DCCC227/1982
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs and Pharmacy & Poisons Offences / Trial Reasons for Verdict / Conviction
Outcome
Convicted
Legal Topics
Possession for Purpose of Trafficking, Statutory Presumptions (s46, S47 Ddo), Section 65 C Admissions, Burden and Standard of Proof, Knowledge and Possession of Poison
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Drug Control Law Pharmacy and Poisons Regulation Evidence Law Criminal Procedure Possession for Purpose of Trafficking Statutory Presumptions (s46,s47 Ddo) Section 65 C Admissions +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

CHAN Lam kee

Defendant (1st)

LAM Wing-pun

Defendant (2nd)

TSE Mui-chi

Defendant (3rd)

Sae Lee Somruethai

Defendant (4th)

LAU Yuk-fat

Defendant (5th)

LEE Lai-king

Defendant (6th)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs and Pharmacy & Poisons Offences / Trial Reasons for Verdict / Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused had possession of drugs for purpose of unlawful trafficking
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumptions under Dangerous Drugs Ordinance ss.46-47 applied and were rebutted
  3. 3 Whether the accused had knowledge of and physical possession (or intent to possess) the poison for the purposes of Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance s.23

Ratio Decidendi

The judge convicted because the statutory presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance applied given the location and nature of the drugs and keys, the defendants' admissions under s65C, and because the defence explanation (third-party account) was found inherently improbable and failed to rebut the presumptions on the balance of probabilities; the judge also found the only reasonable inference as to the poison was knowledge and possession and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt.

Court Disposition

Convicted

Orders

  • Convicted: CHAN Lam kee (1st Defendant) on charges 1, 2 and 4
  • Convicted: Sae Lee Somruethai (4th Defendant) on charge 2