HKSAR v. LAM CHUN FAI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No.234
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant faced one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The charge particularized that he on 3rd November 1997, inside the third floor of 106 Aberdeen Main Road, Aberdeen, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 10.49 grammes of a mixture containing 9.49 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. He pleaded guilty before District Judge Christie and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. He now seeks leave to appeal against that conviction suggesting in his Grounds of Appeal that he did not receive a fair trial as the trial judge did not handle his case objectively and delivered an unfair verdict. He suggests also that the judge did not question the evidence and statement of the prosecution.

2. We find some difficulty with this application as the applicant pleaded guilty at trial and admitted the facts which had given rise to the charge. These facts detailed that after police officers entered the subject premises, one of them entered one of the bedrooms and found the defendant sitting at a table. The officer showed the defendant his police warrant card and a search warrant. On the table were six plastic transparent phial each containing white substance, an empty plastic phial, a paper roll containing traces of white substance and a piece of paper containing traces of white substance. The officer declared arrest on the defendant for trafficking in dangerous drugs and administered a caution. Under caution, the defendant said, "I don't traffic dangerous drugs. I just sell them to earn a living." Upon questioning, he admitted that he was living in the bedroom and that all the properties there were his. Those articles were then seized by the police.

3. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. This was, given the quantity involved, and taking into account the plea, a lenient sentence.

4. It is not entirely clear what the applicant is seeking to do today. He appears to be seeking leave to withdraw his plea suggesting that he didn't have sufficient time to consult his counsel and that his counsel did not sufficiently advise him. There is in no merit in these suggestions. He pleaded guilty in open court, the charge having been read to him, and then admitted the facts which indisputably established guilt.

5. This application is incompetent and it is dismissed. It has been brought without any foundation whatsoever and we, therefore, order that there be two months' loss of time.