THE QUEEN v. SZETO YING LUN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Silke, J.A.:

1. The applicant was convicted after trial of two offences. First, trafficking in dangerous drugs and secondly, possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. For each of those offences, he received a sentence of five years' imprisonment and those sentences were directed to run concurrently. The totality was five years. He seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The quantity which he had in his possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking was 484.21 grammes of a mixture containing 112.53 grammes of salts of esters of morphine and he had been jointly charged in that offence with a 66 years old lady.

3. In respect of the trafficking offence, police officers had laid that which they described as an ambush outside Room 632, Block 22 Tung Tau Estate. They saw inside the premises the applicant together with the old lady. While keeping their watch, a third person came along, went to Room 632, gave some red bank notes to the applicant and was handed a polythene bag of dangerous drugs. This transaction was carried on through the locked iron grille. Then, in the premises, once the police had entered it, the quantities of drugs to which I referred were found.

4. The applicant had had a previous conviction in May 1984 for possession of dangerous drugs and for possession of apparatus fit and intended for the smoking of dangerous drugs. He was placed on probation for one year. The date of this present offence was the 12th October 1984, during the period of that probation. Because of the age of the applicant, he is now eighteen, we thought it proper to call for a background Social Welfare Report to assist us in considering his application. We have received that useful Report and it is clear that the applicant is fully involved in dealing with drugs, himself being a drug addict. There is also a not unusual feature of a triad background. His reaction to the Probation Order which was made on the 24th May was poor. He failed to report after August to his Probation Officer. It would have been of assistance had the Probation Officer drawn that fact to the notice of the first sentencing court. Unfortunately, that was not done.

5. Those who deal in this nefarious trade make use of the halt, the blind, and the maimed - and those of tender years - in order to elicit sympathy from the court should such persons be apprehended. The sentences passed here, and we are very conscious of the age of the applicant, were, if anything, on the lenient side. Not only was he seen to be trafficking directly, and this for his own benefit in the sense of financial reward and the receipt of drugs for his efforts, but he also had a substantial quantity ready to continue his activities. We do not find the sentence, in any way, wrong in principle or excessive. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is, therefore, refused.