|
CACC 149/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2010
(On Appeal From High Court Criminal Case No. 50 of 2010)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
HKSAR |
Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
WAN SIU-LUNG (溫少龍) |
Applicant |
________________________
Before : Hon Cheung JA, Hon McMahon and Lunn JJ in Court
Date of Hearing : 15 October 2010
Date of Judgment : 15 October 2010
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving judgment of the Court) :
1. The applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in 287.26 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. He was sentenced by M. Poon J in the High Court to 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against sentence.
2. The facts are simple. The applicant was intercepted by Customs officers at the Kowloon Tong MTR Station and the drugs were found hidden beneath the front waistband of his trousers. He told the Customs officers that they were white powder and he collected it for someone else. The retail value of the drugs was HK$362,757.
3. Under the Lau Tak Ming guideline, trafficking in heroin of between 200 to 400 grammes attracts a sentence of between 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment. The Judge used a starting point of 13 years and gave one third discount to the applicant for his guilty plea.
4. The tariff for drug trafficking is based on the quantity of the drugs. Based on the quantity of 287.26 grammes of heroin, the Judge has correctly adopted a starting point of 13 years instead of 12 years as suggested by the applicant.
5. The applicant explained that he committed the present offence not because he wanted to earn quick money but that he had fallen prey of a plot by a friend who lent him $20,000 for his 6-year-old daughter to undergo an operation to cure her physical deformity. When the friend demanded repayment he was left with no choice but to deliver the drugs for him, fearing that his family’s safety would be jeopardized. In Court he asked for leniency saying that he had tried to improve himself in prison after he began his sentence.
6. The Court had stated repeatedly that in serious offence of this type the personal circumstances of the applicant and his reason for trafficking would have very little effect on the sentence.
7. As the sentence was a proper one we will dismiss the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(M.A. McMahon)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
(Michael Lunn)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
Mr. Edmond Lee, SPP of Department of Justice, for the Respondent
Applicant, in person, present
|