Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of poison

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2015

HKSAR v. LAM SHUK MING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM SHUK MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC97/2014

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's 12-month enhancement for possession of 6.49 grams of methamphetamine was excessive and reduced the enhancement to six months (making the starting point 21 months and, after a one-third discount, Charge 2 = 1 year 2 months). The court ordered the drug sentences (Charges 2-4) to run concurrently (total 1 year 2 months) and applied the totality principle by directing one year of the drug sentence to run consecutively to the burglary sentence of 1 year 8 months, producing a revised aggregate sentence of 2 years 8 months; appeal allowed in part.
22 Jul 2009

HKSAR v. ZULFIQAR ALI

Citation

HKSAR v. ZULFIQAR ALI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA461/2009

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant had validly pleaded guilty and agreed the facts, the UNHCR had closed his case so he lacked ongoing protection, and the concurrent sentences imposed were not wrong or excessive.
23 Nov 2005

HKSAR v. LEUNG YUNG TIM

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG YUNG TIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA730/2005

The conviction was upheld because the appellant was found in possession of sildenafil, a Part I poison, and failed to establish any statutory exception under section 28 (notably he had no prescription); his guilty plea was voluntary and supported the conviction.
22 Jan 2002

HKSAR v. CHAU HON KWONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU HON KWONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA6/2002

Because the alleged verbal admission was the only real evidence linking the appellant to the drugs and the police witnesses gave materially contradictory accounts about who was present and who heard the admission, the prosecution had not proved the admission reliably; convictions based on that confused evidence were unsafe and therefore quashed.
7 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. YAU WAI HANG

Citation

HKSAR v. YAU WAI HANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC80/2001

The court held that the sentencing judge erred in taking the maximum as the starting point for charge 1; adjusted the starting points for each offence (charge1 15 months, charge2 24 months reduced to 2 years, charge3 30 months accepted), applied a one-third guilty plea discount, and imposed a combination of consecutive periods producing an aggregate effective sentence of 36 months because the offences were distinct and the offender's repeated sales justified partial consecutiveness; overall sentence must reflect both guideline tariffs and the totality principle.
11 Jun 1997

R v. CHAN SHEUNG KUEN

Citation

R v. CHAN SHEUNG KUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC375/1996

The trial judge correctly admitted and weighed the evidence (drugs found, chemical analysis, admissions, corroborating items and cash); her interventions were justified and did not render the trial unfair; absent legal error the appellate court will not overturn the judge's credibility findings, so the conviction is upheld.
29 May 1997

R. v. GARY ORTON

Citation

R. v. GARY ORTON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA225/1997

The court held that diazepam is materially less harmful than methaqualone and therefore sentencing for trafficking in diazepam should be significantly less (approximately two-thirds) of that for equivalent quantities of methaqualone; the appellant's sentence for trafficking in diazepam was reduced to effect immediate release while the sentence for the possession/poison charge was upheld.
23 Feb 1990

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WAI MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WAI MAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC285/1989

The Court held the evidence — keys linking the applicant to the premises, bags containing large quantities of dangerous drugs and poisons in the car, and physical evidence of drug manufacture in the rooms — was sufficient to support the convictions; there was no record of any adjournment application and no error in the trial judge's summing-up, therefore the application/appeal had no merit and was refused.
5 Oct 1988

THE QUEEN v. LEE MUI-YING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE MUI-YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA489/1988

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's sentence was within the recognised tariff and his belief that the prison would admit and keep the child under Rule 21 was correct; no new circumstances were shown that would justify reducing the sentence on humanitarian grounds.
28 Dec 1976

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE CHUNG-LEUNG

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE CHUNG-LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR21/1976

Because the magistrate was not informed of the full background (legitimate use minimal in Hong Kong and substantial illegal market) and the facts (about one pound of ephedrine concealed on the person) were analogous to a precedent where immediate custody was imposed, the original sentence was manifestly inadequate; the Court increased the sentence to nine months' imprisonment but suspended it for eighteen months, in addition to the fine already imposed.