|
CACC000436/1985
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL |
1985, No. 436
(Criminal)
|
BETWEEN
|
THE QUEEN |
|
|
and
|
|
|
YEUNG CHUN NIN |
(D1) |
|
LAU TING BONG |
(D2) |
|
LAU KAM YEUNG |
(D3 |
--------
Coram: Li, V.-P., Yang, J.A. & Penlington, J.
Date of hearing: 16th May, 1986.
Date of delivery of judgment: 16th May, 1986.
__________
JUDGMENT
__________
Yang, J. A. :
1. This is the 1st Applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. He pleaded guilty to two charges of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The amount involved in the first count was some 1,364.17 grammes of a mixture containing salts of esters of morphine, and the amount involved in the second count is 5,670.47 grammes of a mixture containing salts of esters of morphine.
2. The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. He was seen by a police party when he arrived in a car, alighted from it and passed some drugs over to a co-defendant. This was the subject matter of the first charge. Later on, his car was stopped and searched, and a large quantity, the subject matter of the second charge, was discovered. As counsel for the Applicant pointed out both incidents formed one transaction. One way of looking at the incident is to take the total amount of drug into consideration and arrive at a proper totality of sentence. The total quantity of drug in these two counts added together come to some 7,000 grammes. The guideline laid down in Chan Chi Ming is that for an amount above 1,000 grammes the sentence after trial should be in the range of 8 to 12 years. Now of course here we have an amount which is some 7 times larger than the amount envisaged in Chan Chi Ming. We think that if the Defendant had pleaded not guilty, an appropriate sentence upon conviction for the amount involved should be something in the region of 15 years. Giving him credit for his plea of guilty, we would take away 3 years, thereby reducing it to 12. Giving him further credit for his cooperation with the police and also the probation report which is favourable, we would take away another 2 years. The totality of the sentence for the whole amount would therefore be 10 years.
3. We accordingly treat the application as an appeal, allow the appeal and substitute the following sentences. On the first count the sentence is reduced from 10 to 8 years and on the second count the sentence is reduced from 12 to 10 years, the two sentences to run concurrently.
|
T. L. Yang
Justice of Appeal
|
Representation:
G. Rodway, Q. C. & P. Dinan (Z. E. Li & Co.) for A1/D1
R. Whitehead (Samuel Soo & Co.) for A2/D2 & A3/D3
G. J. X. McCoy & Albert Wong for D. P. P./Respondent
|