R. v. WU KAM LOK

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 61
(Criminal)

_______________

^{_____________________}

^{_____________________}

J U D G M E N T

^{_____________________}

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

1. On 2 January 1997 the applicant pleaded guilty before Pang J to one offence of trafficking in 376.34 grammes of "ice" and the second offence of simple possession of 2.35 grammes of "ice". The judge sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment on the first count and one month imprisonment concurrent on the second count.

The facts

2. On 30 May 1996 police officers on duty in Wanchai saw the defendant carrying a black plastic bag. When he was stopped and searched, 14 plastic bags of "ice" were found. That was the "ice" concerned in the first count. He had keys on him. He took the officers back to his flat. He had said in the meantime that another person had asked him to take the "ice" back. On arrival at his flat, a man who was not charged was present. But the "ice" concerned in the second count was found and the applicant said it was for his own consumption. Plastic bags and scales were found at the flat.

3. When interviewed the applicant admitted the offences. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

At trial

4. He advanced for the consideration of the judge the same matters that he asked this Court to take into account in his application for leave to appeal against the sentences. In particular he submits that the judge failed to take into account the skin disease he suffers from; his good record and the fact that he had offered to give assistance by testifying against others.

5. It is clear that the judge had those matters in mind although he does not mention all of them in the course of sentencing. The judge took 15 years as his starting point. That was precisely within the guideline laid down by this Court in AG v Cheng Kwok-hung [1991]2 HKLR at 125. Having regard to the applicant's early plea of guilty he gave him full credit for this plea and the other matters advanced in mitigation save for his offer of assistance to which we were referred, and the result was the 10 years sentence.

6. So far as the offer of assistance is concerned, that the judge noted it, but said that it was speculative - having in mind no doubt if in the future the applicant does give significant assistance to the authorities, he can petition the Chief Executive for administrative deduction.

7. As it is, the sentence passed by the judge was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. Indeed, it was a sentence which this Court would think that it was exactly correct. The application is refused.