Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of a dangerous drug

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. MD SHAJU

Citation

[2018] HKCA 869
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC187/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied the tariff guidelines, properly assessed the batch of drugs and rejected a personal use defence, took into account aggravating factors (Form 8 recognizance and offending on bail), applied the one third guilty plea discount to each count and correctly applied the totality principle to arrive at a 4 year sentence; no error of approach or principle was shown.
18 Oct 2016

HKSAR v. RAI KAMAL

Citation

HKSAR v. RAI KAMAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA386/2016

The magistrate's acceptance of the police officers' evidence and rejection of the appellant's testimony was warranted on credibility grounds; the lack of fingerprint evidence did not render the convictions unsafe; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the convictions upheld.
8 Jan 2010

HKSAR v. CHUNG LAM

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA889/2009

Although the quantity of midazolam was minimal and for manifestly personal use, the presence of the drug in a correctional institution is an aggravating factor warranting a deterrent sentence; balancing the minimal quantity and plea, the appropriate sentence is 10 months imprisonment to run consecutively to the appellant's existing term.
2 May 2002

HKSAR v. HO CHUN LOY

Citation

HKSAR v. HO CHUN LOY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA267/2002

The magistrate's acceptance of the police officer's evidence and the appellant's verbal admission provided sufficient and reliable evidence of possession of a dangerous drug; the conviction was not unsafe and the appeal was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. MD SHAJU

HKSAR v. RAI KAMAL

HKSAR v. CHUNG LAM

HKSAR v. HO CHUN LOY