THE QUEEN v. LAW ON-WAH

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

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

1. In this matter the applicant faced one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug which particularized that on 8th May 1994 at Pei Ho Street, Shamshuipo, he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 57.31 grammes of a mixture containing 18.97 grammes of salts of esters of morphine.

2. The facts are all too familiar. The defendant was observed standing near a refuse collection point carrying a brown coloured bag on his shoulder. As he was acting furtively, police officer approached him and revealed their identity. They searched him and located the plastic bag in the front portion of his underpants. When the bag was opened the 12 transparent plastic packets were found in it which contained the dangerous drugs the subject of the charge. When asked what they were he said to the police "white powder". He was thereupon arrested and charged but was given bail.

3. A matter which concerned the trial judge and, rightly, in our view, was that, having been given bail, he then absconded failing to attend his trial on 28th December 1994. He was clearly, at that time, suffering under no sense of remorse. He caused a trial for which the court and the Crown had gone to the trouble and expense of preparing to be aborted. He did not surrender but was eventually re-arrested by the police on 19th January 1996. In consequence of that re-arrest he was again brought before the court when he pleaded guilty.

4. He today suggests that the sentence was not a fair one and that his plea has saved the "precious time" of the court. The starting point of six year was a perfectly proper one in accord with the guideline tariff in Lau Tak-ming. The applicant's only possible complaint would be that he was not given a greater discount for plea.

5. The trial judge, when sentencing, said:

"You failed to attend the trial date on 28.12.94 and were not re-arrested by police until 19.1.96. You have pleaded guilty but because that plea is a very belated one you cannot expect as much credit for it as would normally be given."

We are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to approach the matter in that way. That being so, there is nothing which would allow us to interfere with her sentence and the application must, therefore, be refused.