HKSAR v. NG SAI HO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.528
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This Applicant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' court to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. His plea was confirmed in the High Court before Deputy Judge Suffiad, as he then was, on 13th August 1997.

2. The first charge related to a mixture containing approximately 1,149 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, and the second was in relation to 55.45 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 4,280 tablets containing 9.93 grammes of diazepam. The Applicant received sentences of 16 years and 51/2 years respectively which were ordered to run concurrently. He now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it was too severe, and he has referred us to a total of six cases, four today and two in his written grounds. There he points out that others have been sentenced for similar cases to his own, where the amounts of heroin were greater than in his case although the sentences imposed appeared to be lighter.

3. So far as the drugs in the first charge are concerned, these were found on the Applicant when he was arrested. The drugs in the second charge were found at accommodation rented by him. The evidence was overwhelming and the Applicant readily accepted that he had been caught red-handed. He was entirely cooperative from the outset.

4. We must point out to the Applicant that the courts need to decide each individual case on the facts which are presented, and no two cases will be exactly the same. In the Applicant's case, the trial judge adopted the guidance which is offered in The Queen v. Ho Chi-ming, Cr.App. 447 of 1994, where 25 years was approved as a proper starting point in a case where the quantity of heroin was similar to the present case. In the present case, the trial judge decided to adopt the starting point of 24 years imprisonment and, given the circumstances of the case, we feel that the judge was perfectly entitled to do so. The Applicant was then given a full one-third discount.

5. We can see no reason to interfere with the sentence that was imposed and, accordingly, this application is dismissed.