Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of drugs

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2005

HKSAR v. WONG KAP SI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAP SI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA702/2005

The Court held that the magistrate's 18‑month starting point for trafficking was manifestly excessive in the circumstances; after applying the relevant tariff, aggravating factors and a discount for the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence for trafficking was 9 months' imprisonment; the possession sentence was excessive and should be 1 month; the possession sentence was to run consecutively to the trafficking sentence resulting in a total of 10 months' imprisonment; appeal allowed to that extent.
23 Feb 2000

HKSAR v. NG KA WING KEVIN

Citation

HKSAR v. NG KA WING KEVIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC563/1999

The Court allowed the appeal in part and held that, applying the sentencing guidelines and the totality principle, the consecutive six month sentence on the small-quantity personal-possession charge (charge 4) was excessive in the context of the aggregate sentence; the appropriate remedy was to make the six months concurrent so that the total term remains four years imprisonment, reflecting the overall criminality without unfairly lengthening the sentence for a minor personal-possession quantity.
6 May 1987

THE QUEEN v. KWOK LUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KWOK LUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC54/1987

The conviction was upheld because the admitted facts and accepted police evidence established that the appellant had been on the boat for many hours, was within a few feet of openly displayed drugs, gave inconsistent evidence about his presence, and failed to rebut the presumptions arising from possession; therefore the judge properly found possession and the resulting sentence for the measured quantity was within established guidelines.
18 Mar 1974

SO FAT CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SO FAT CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC584/1973

The convictions were upheld because, viewed as a whole, the evidence (drug factory premises, recipe and paraphernalia, keys linked to premises and cubicle, drug traces on fingernails, flight and implausible alibi) amply supported the jury's finding of knowledge and possession; the defective direction on joint possession was not fatal in the circumstances; exclusion of an earlier statement does not automatically invalidate later answers unless inducement persisted.
16 Mar 1973

CHEUNG HON BIU AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHEUNG HON BIU AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC125/1973

The conviction was quashed because the magistrate expressly relied on the statutory presumption under s47(1)(c) without proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had possession, custody or control of the keys or any part of the hut; mere presence in the hut does not establish the requisite possession for the presumption to apply.
13 May 1972

MAK CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

MAK CHUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC106/1972

The evidence of the arrested third party was admissible; on the evidence the appellant controlled the cubicle where 4,087 grams of opium were found so the s.47 statutory presumption of possession arose and was not rebutted; consequently the s.46 presumption relevant to trafficking applied and the conviction was properly maintained; leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 Dec 1968

YU PING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YU PING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC666/1968

Given the appellant's admission that the drugs were for three persons and absent reliable basis to treat the quantity as proof of trafficking, the learned judge concluded the 18 months' sentence was not excessive and dismissed the appeal.
25 Nov 1968

WONG SUI PING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG SUI PING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC651/1968

The magistrate's acceptance of the police evidence that the packet was found in the appellant's pocket was a permissible finding of fact; there was no basis on the record for the appellate court to overturn that factual finding, so the conviction must stand.