HKSAR v. WONG CHUNG LING

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 589
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 23rd October 1995, this Applicant pleaded guilty in the High Court to trafficking in a mixture containing 340.8 grammes of salts of esters of morphine (heroin). On 30th October 1995, Leong J. sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence. In the normal way, his application, being considerably out of time, might well not have been entertained at this stage but, having heard him give his reasons for the lateness of the application which relate to recent developments affecting the mitigation advanced at his trial, we have indicated already that we are prepared on this occasion to do so.

2. The case against the Applicant was that he was the courier for the dangerous drugs mentioned in the charge. He was arrested on 20th July 1994, as he approached the flat where the drugs were kept. He had in his possession the keys to the door.

3. The Applicant, who was then 44 years old, had a dreadful criminal record including five offences relating to drugs, and he had previously served a six year sentence for trafficking.

4. The trial judge rightly took a starting point of 15 years. He then reduced this by a full one-third to ten years taking into account the plea of guilty. He then took off a further two years for the Applicant's cooperation, which is fully covered in the transcript at page 7, so that the Applicant was left with just over half of the sentence that he would have received if he had been found guilty by a jury on his charge.

5. Why then does the Applicant seek leave to appeal? He has written his grounds at great length but they come to this. He believes that counsel in the Department of Justice has written a letter to the Legal Aid Department which does not truly reflect his role in recent times with regard to information he has imparted to the police. That letter seems to indicate that the arrest of one Yeung King-kwok was connected to ongoing trafficking in the People's Republic of China and not to information which is directly linked to this Applicant.

6. The Applicant had, at the time of his arrest, given some information about two traffickers who were brothers surnamed Yeung and Yeung King-kwok has recently been arrested. However, it is clear that the information given by the Applicant did not lead to that arrest. Furthermore, that offender is not going to face prosecution in Hong Kong because the arrest and the offence took place out of the jurisdiction. The Applicant feels aggrieved that he cannot claim further credit in the form of a greater reduction in his sentence, but we are satisfied that the trial judge gave generous credit in the court below and that the Applicant has no legitimate complaint. He received a substantial discount for the assistance which he was able to give nearer the time of his arrest. The fact that he will be unable to give evidence about the activities of particular offenders is not a matter for our consideration provided he was sufficiently rewarded for the assistance which he has given. We are satisfied he has already received generous credit for that in the court below. That, as we have already stated, we are satisfied he has been given by the court.

7. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the application is dismissed.