|
CACC 52/2022
[2022] HKCA 1326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 52 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 267 OF 2021)
_______________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
HKSAR |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
CHAN CHUN HEI (陳俊曦) |
Applicant |
_______________
Before: Hon Pang JA in Court
Date of Hearing: 30 August 2022
Date of Decision: 30 August 2022
Date of Reasons for Decision: 6 September 2022
________________________
REASONS FOR DECISION
________________________
1. The applicant was charged with trafficking in 2.7 g of cocaine in 3.07 g of solid (contained in 20 small packets) and dangerous driving. He pleaded to the lesser alternatives of simple possession and careless driving. They were rejected. After trial, he was found guilty of simple possession and dangerous driving (17 February 2022). Respectively, he was sentenced to 12 months and 6 months’ imprisonment, to be served partly consecutively and partly concurrently, giving a total of 15 months’ imprisonment (8 April 2022).
2. He applies for bail pending appeal against sentence.
3. Unless the amount of dangerous drug involved is less than one gramme, the normal starting point of sentence for simple possession is 12 to 18 months. I am not in any way persuaded that that the 18-month starting point in this case (15 months plus 3 months’ enhancement on account of the latent risk factor) is excessive.
4. In this case, the act of dangerous driving involved reversing in a one-way road upon seeing a police roadblock. The applicant did not stop until a light goods vehicle drove up from behind. For this dangerous attempt to evade the law, an immediate term of imprisonment is not wrong in principle. Arguably, the 6-month sentence is on the high side but, for the sake of argument, a 3-month term to be served wholly consecutively to the 12 months for simple possession (a completely different offence) would be unassailable.
5. The English cases on how the covid situation should impact upon sentences are irrelevant. The considerations involved are necessarily regime-sensitive and have little if any comparative value to the Hong Kong courts.
6. In my judgment, it is not reasonably arguable that the overall sentence in this case is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. I refuse the applicant’s application.
| |
(Derek Pang)
Justice of Appeal
|
Mr Simon So, instructed by Ho & Associates, for the Applicant
Mr Douglas Lau, PP of Department of Justice, for the Respondent
|