HKSAR v. LAU KA WING

CACC 120/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 402 OF 1998)

---------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Leong, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The amount involved was 5,825.57 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. He was sentenced in the Court of First Instance in the High Court by Deputy Judge Jackson to a term of 16 years imprisonment.

2. The applicant was intercepted when two police officers saw him get out of a vehicle with a paper bag in his hands. The bag was found to contain dangerous drugs. After he was arrested, he volunteered to the officers that there were more dangerous drugs in the car. A search of the car was made and police officers recovered 20 blocks of heroin hydrochloride. Together with the dangerous drugs in the paper bag, they formed the subject matter of the charge he is now convicted.

3. The value of the heroin was assessed to be HK$3.3193 million.

4. Deputy Judge Jackson following the sentencing guidelines on dangerous drug offences, adopted a starting point of 24 years and after discounting for his early plea, imposed the sentence of 16 years imprisonment. There were no other mitigating circumstances for further discount.

5. The applicant now applies for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that the Judge in sentencing him did not take into account his family background. According to him he started working after he quitted school at Form 2 and all along he had behaved himself. Because of the economic downturn, he lost his job. He came across an old friend who asked him to transport by car some goods for him. When he found out the goods were dangerous drugs, he wanted to withdraw. He was then threatened that some thing could happen to his parents if he withdrew. Eventually, he did as he was told. He also maintained that he had co-operated with the police all along.

6. Before us, he now asserts in addition that there were other cases where similar quantities of heroin hydrochloride were involved, but the defendants in those cases got lighter sentences.

7. What the applicant submits in his grounds of appeal and before us today have been submitted to the Deputy Judge by counsel on his behalf and it is apparent that in sentencing the applicant, the Deputy Judge had taken all these into account.

8. This is a very serious drug offence involving a very large quantity of dangerous drugs and in such an applicant's family background has very little weight in mitigation. There may well be other cases involving similar amounts of dangerous drugs where the defendants were sentenced to lighter terms of imprisonment, but these sentences were imposed wholly in the circumstances of those cases. The Judge had followed the guidelines in adopting the starting point of 24 years and he had taken fully into consideration, the applicant's plea which reflects his remorse. The Judge was in those circumstances fully justified in imposing the sentence he imposed. We see no merit in this application. The application is dismissed.