THE QUEEN v. LAU MUN SHEUNG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 1986

___________

BETWEEN

_________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Power, J. :

1. In this matter the applicant faced a charge of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.  He and another person were charged that, on the 9th of October, 1985 at Western, they had in their possession dangerous drugs, namely 447.19 grammes of a mixture containing 80.72 grammes of salts of esters of morphine for the purpose of unlawful trafficking,  The facts reveal that at about 4:50 p.m. on the 9th of October, three men, one of whom was the applicant, were seen to enter an enclosed construction site through a locked gate and that two of them, including the applicant, entered the watchman's hut.  They remained in the hut until, shortly afterwards, the police, who had been observing them, jumped down from the roof of the hut and arrested them. Inside the hut were found a number of articles which indicated that the hut was a packing centre.  They were the classic articles used in packing scales, plastic dishes, sheets upon which the drug was sorted and so on.  The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge of trafficking and was sentenced by the trial judge to imprisonment for 5½ years.  Mr. Alderdice, who appears for him today, urges only one ground in the appeal against sentence which is that insufficient credit was given to him for his plea of guilty.  He also asks the Court to consider that the applicant is a hopeless drug addict saying that this is a matter, that can quite properly, in accordance with the observations in CHAN Chi-ming, be taken into account by this Court.  What this Court must look at, as well as these facts urged by Mr. Alderdice, are the facts overall that apply to this conviction.  The amount involved was 447 grammes, a large amount.   The applicant was discovered in circumstances that indicated that he was actively involved in the packing and dissemination of dangerous drugs.  He was found at the packing centre.  The facts also reveal that on the 16th August 1985 he had been arrested for the same offence, i.e. possession for unlawful trafficking.  As regards that offence, he pleaded not guilty but was, in the outcome, found guilty of simple possession.  He was on bail on that offence when on the 9th October he committed the present offence.  This is itself is a serious matter.  He committed a further offence while on bail.  The trial judge did not make specific reference to the fact that he took that into account, however it is before this Court, and one which we consider, it is proper to take into account.

2. We have, in the present case, on one hand, a plea of guilty and the fact that the applicant is a hopeless addict; on the other hand, we have the fact that he was actively involved in a packing centre, that a large quantity of dangerous drugs was found in that centre, and that he committed the offence while on bail on a charge of similar offence.   Having considered all of these matters, we are quite unable to come to a conclusion that the sentence of 5½ years was too high. We consider that this was a proper sentence in the circumstances and the application must therefore be refused.