THE QUEEN v. LAU LUN FU

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Kempster, J. A. :

1. On 9 February 1987 certain premises at Shamshuipo were under surveillance. A motor car was observed. The occupants were allowed to alight. The motor car, to use a colloquialism, "drove round the block" and on its return two men emerged from the premises each carrying a package and placed those packages in the boot of the vehicle. Police officers then moved in and arrests were made. One of the persons arrested was. Lau Lun Fu and in due course he was charged with three offences of possessing dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and brought to trial. Initially he pleaded "not guilty" but almost at the end of the proceedings apparently as a result of effective cross-examination, he changed his pleas. The jury were then directed to enter verdicts of guilty and he was convicted of the possession of the dangerous drugs found in the boot of the car in shamshuipo on 9 February for the purpose of unlawful trafficking; possession of dangerous drugs found at his place of abode for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and on the fourth count, possession for a like purpose of dangerous drugs also found in the boot of a car outside his home, all on the same day.

2. The overall sentences passe this applicant amounted to 20 years; Deputy High Court Judge Evans having taken the view that the change of Plea at the stage we have outlined warranted only a very small discount. Now Lau Lun Fu seeks leave to appeal against these sentences.

3. The quantity of drugs involved amounts by rough calculation to between 60 kg and 70 kg No 3 heroin worth, it is conceded on his behalf - we take it this is a street value - some HK$7m. This as the trial judge pointed out when sentencing him on 21 August 1987, is an enormous quantity exceeding any category where this court has given specific guidelines. The point is made on Lau's behalf and it is made strongly, that in other cases sentences of a similar order have been imposed but in relation to even greater quantities of dangerous drugs.

4. We were referred to the cases of R v Suen Shek and Others [1988] 1 HKLR 524, which involved conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs where some 292 kg, worth perhaps HK$21m, were involved resulting in a sentence on the second applicant of 20 years; to R v Tsui and Other [1985] Cr App No. 406; R v Chan Ho Kue Cr App No 532 of` 1987 and R v Chan Wai Shing Cr App No 557 of 1987. All these were cases relating to much realer quantities and values of dangerous drugs in which sentences of or smut 20 years were passed

5. It is contended that this applicant is entitled to feel some sense of grievance or to complain of unfairness because a similar overall sentence was imposed in him in relation to a lesser aggregate quantify of dangerous drugs. It is also submitted that counsel and solicitors seeking to advise defendants in the context of seizures of large quantities of dangerous drugs are in same difficulty in advising as to pleas of guilty in circumstances where no clear guidelines as to probable sentences are available.

6. We have considered these factors and appreciate their force. We think however that those who seek to make great sums of money from this pefarious trade are, or henceforth should be, aware that once they out themselves into the catagory of major participants they may well expect sentences in the order of 20 years imprisonment. The Courts of Hong Kong are and must be concerned to impose sentences in this field which do not involve incarcerating individuals for life and must, therefore, have an approximate ceiling. Accordingly when very large quantities of dangerous drugs with high values are found possessed for the purposes of trafficking no very great distinction can be made between particular possessed. The amount of drugs which we have described here came into that category and there was no basis for a plea ad misericordiam. The applicant was aged some 30 years. The fact that he was himself an addict seems to us neither here nor there nor in we think it particularly significant that he suffered a financial penalty in that HK$100,000 were confiscate from him.

7. In our view, despite all that has been urged upon us, the sentences which were imposed by the judge on this applicant were appropriate. Accordingly, we feel bound to dismiss his application for leave to anneal against them.