R. v. LUK CHI FAT

1996, Nos.480 and 481

(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Sears, J. (Giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant was arrested in October 1995 and was trafficking, at that time, in 7.8 Krammes of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "ice". Whilst on bail for that offence, he was later arrested in December 1995, trafficking in 129 Krammes of "ice". He pleaded guilty to both of those offences.

2. Deputy Judge Kigour sitting in the High Court took a starting point of 10 years for the major offence and one of 3 years for the earlier offence. This was in conformity with the tariff for "ice" which had been laid down in Attorney General v. Ching Kwok Hung. For the pleas of guilty, he discounted the 10 year sentence to 7 years and the 3 year sentence to 2. He ordered both sentences to run consecutively, making a total of 9 years.

3. The applicant before us today was a person of previous good character who had entered a plea of guilty at an early moment. The main point he raises today is that the sentences should be concurrent rather than consecutive. These offences were wholly distinct and, as has been said, the second offence was committed whilst the applicant was on bail for the earlier offence. In our judgment, the judge was correct to make the sentences consecutive.

4. Having regard to the totality of the sentences imposed, one of nine years, we are not persuaded that it was in any way wrong. The application is refused.