R. v. CHAN HUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 679

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the total sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed upon him for possession of dangerous drugs. He pleaded guilty to the two offences.

2. The facts were simple.

3. During a police raid which was conducted on the 10 June 1996 the applicant was found to be in possession of 1.28 Krams of almost pure heroin. This was the subject to the 1st charge. He was then asked if he had any more dangerous drugs. He replied in the affirmative and produced to the police officers a further quantity of dangerous drugs amounting to 19.50 Grams of again almost pure heroin. He told the police officers that he had recently purchased the drugs for his own consumption.

4. As stated above he was only charged with possession of dangerous drugs.

5. Her Honour Judge Beeson who sentenced the applicant declined to order that he should attend a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre on account of the quantity of dangerous drugs involved. She went on to state that she adopted 12 months' imprisonment for the 1st charge and three years' imprisonment for the 2nd charge as being the starting point.

6. She then gave the applicant credit for his plea. This was not an entirely straight forward situation. The amount of dangerous drugs involved in the second count was much larger than the amount usually involved in a case of simple possession. Had the applicant been found guilty of trafficking in this quantity of dangerous drugs he would have been facing a sentence of between five to eight years.

7. Although the reasons for sentence are silent on the point it is very likely that the trial judge bore in mind the latent risk of the applicant trafficking in some of the dangerous drugs.

8. In the Attorney-General's Application for Review AG v. Chan Ching Ho No. 9/93 the Court of Appeal increased the sentence of three years to a sentence of 4½ years where a defendant had been in possession of a substantial amount of dangerous drugs and had only been found guilty of being in possession of the dangerous drugs. It is true that the amount of dangerous drugs in that case was substantially in excess of the amount in the present case.

9. However having regard to all of the circumstances of this case we do not think that it can be said that the total sentence which was imposed was either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

10. This application is therefore dismissed.