20 Dec 1996
R. v. LAM SO CHUN
- Citation
- R. v. LAM SO CHUN
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA600/1996
The conviction was quashed because the prosecution withheld highly material evidence of nine other undercover visits which, if timely disclosed and properly considered, would have shown that the necessary element of persistent or habitual user was not established; the single incident evidence was insufficient on the totality of circumstances to prove the premises were kept as a vice establishment, and the non‑disclosure rendered the conviction unsafe.