25 Apr 1986
Leave to appeal was refused because the aggregate sentence was within the established tariff for the combined quantity of opium (3,293.2 grams) as determined by prior decisions; the sentence was not excessive and no sufficient mitigating factor warranted interference.
16 Nov 1970
The conviction was upheld because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly possessed opium: he produced and unlocked two suitcases in the presence of Revenue officers, opium was found in false bottoms revealed in his presence (and the briefcase was identified in his presence), and he made incriminating admissions; these facts satisfied the requisite knowledge and possession and justified affirmation of conviction and sentence.
26 Jan 1968
Because the appellant did not have the benefit of knowing or answering prejudicial facts, was absent during the co-accused's trial, and his guilty plea and the limited nature and remoteness of the prior dealing conviction were not properly weighed, the sentence on the first count was unsafe; on rehearing the appropriate sentence for the first count is reduced to three years and the existing sentence on the second count is left unchanged to run concurrently.