HKSAR v. HUI MOK WO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.285
(Criminal)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

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

1. The applicant faced one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. It was particularized that on 28th September 1996 at Room 270 in the Customs Arrival Hall at Lo Wu Checkpoint, he unlawfully trafficked in 651.12 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 621.05 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. He pleaded not guilty to that charge but was found guilty after trial before Deputy Judge Wesley Wong and a jury. He had been stopped at the checkpoint by a Customs officer and had then been searched and the drugs were found wrapped in stockings in two packets secured by his underpants and covered by his shirt and trousers. He maintained that he thought that the packets contained western medicine which he had been given by a friend to carry into Hong Kong for use by the friend's wife. Evidence to that effect was clearly rejected by the jury. We have read the summing-up of the judge with care. It covered all of the directions that should have been given to a jury in the circumstances obtaining.

2. This applicant in his appeal against conviction raises nothing of merit and the application is refused.

3. He also seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of 15 years that was imposed by Deputy Judge Wesley Wong. The judge when sentencing said:

"Your counsel has said all that can be said on your behalf. Trafficking in dangerous drug is a very serious offence. Ice is a hard drug and it ranks as addictive and as damaging as heroin. It has brought untold miseries to the abusers and in turn has affected the society as a whole. This trade has to be eradicated, thus a long custodial sentence for traffickers is necessary as a deterrent to others.

For offences of such a serious nature previous convictions or the lack of it count very little when the court imposes sentence. You have not shown any remorse over this matter. In fact, there are no mitigating circumstances, not to say extenuating circumstances which justify me departing from the sentencing guideline. I hate to sentence an old man like you to a very long term of imprisonment, but I am duty bound to do so. If I were to impose a lenient sentence on you others might use that as an inducement for others like you to follow suit.

The amount of ice you trafficked is very substantial, over 600 grams. The starting point should be at least over 18 years, but, in view of your age, I am prepared to be slightly more lenient and you will be sentenced to a term of 15 years imprisonment."

4. In his written grounds of appeal against sentence the applicant states that he is 66 years of age and is not fit for serving a long sentence. He had said to us today that he is an old man, that he is sick, that he has children in China and that there is no Social Welfare Department that might care for them. He asks on all these grounds for a further reduction in sentence. These were matters which were before the trial judge who, indeed, because of his age gave him a substantial reduction. The court has said repeatedly that youth or age cannot be properly be regarded as mitigating circumstances in offences which involve trafficking in dangerous drugs. This was a serious offence. It was calculated and it involved a substantial quantity of ice which is a dangerously addictive drug. The sentence imposed was a proper one and the application must be refused.