THE QUEEN v. TSE CHUK MAN

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Penlington, J.A.:

1. These are applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

2. The brief facts of the matter, as found by the trial judge, were that on the 10th January 1991 at the Sun Kwong Nam Restaurant in Shanghai Street police officers were keeping observation and they saw a man, who was the 1st defendant at the trial, one Chan Shun Sze, come into the restaurant with two plastic bags. Shortly afterwards the applicant came in and sat down in the same booth with the 1st defendant. He picked up one of the plastic bags and put it beside him. Another man then came in and the applicant showed him the contents of that bag. That man left the restaurant. The police officers then went across to the two men and they were arrested. The two plastic bags, one of which was on the floor and the other was on the seat, were found to contain a total of 10,868 grammes of cannabis resin which had 627 grammes of tetrahydrocannabinol.

3. The applicant challenged the police evidence and said that the police officers were not in a position to see what they had said they did when they gave evidence. Photographs were produced of the restaurant and also a sketch plan. The trial judge in her reasons for verdict said that she was quite satisfied that the police officers could have seen what they said they did and she accepted their evidence. The applicant gave evidence and said that while he was in the restaurant with the 1st defendant he knew nothing whatever about the cannabis resin that was contained in the bags. The trial judge did not accept his evidence. This was purely a matter of fact for the trial judge and we are satisfied that there was ample evidence before her to justify the conclusions that she came to. The application to appeal against conviction is refused.

4. On the question of sentence we have considered the guideline case referred to us by Crown counsel of Attorney General v. Chan Chi Man, Application for Review No. 19 of 1986, [1987] HKLR 221, which lays down that for quantity of over 9,000 grammes of cannabis sentences of four years and upwards are appropriate. Here the applicant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment after trial. It is true that in Chan Chi man it was thought that cannabis resin usually contains about 15% of tetrahydrocannabinol while here the percentage was about 6%.  Nevertheless it was a substantial quantity and the sentence passed is at the bottom of the scale. We therefore see again no reason why we should interfere with the sentence and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is also refused.