HKSAR v. KAMANO MICHEL

CAC C 375/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2009

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 273 OF 2009)

_______________________

_______________________

_______________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

Hon Lunn VP (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1. By a Notice of Motion filed with the Court on 4 February 2016, the applicant invited the Court to certify out of time that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in the decision of this Court of 28 May 2010 refusing his application for leave to appeal against the sentence of 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Line J on 20 October 2009. That sentence was imposed upon him, following his plea of guilty in the Magistracy, for an offence of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs on 8 April 2009 at Hong Kong International Airport, on his arrival from Bangkok, namely 637.04 grammes of hydrochloride and 79.66 grammes of monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride.

2. The parties not objecting to the Court dealing with the application on the papers, the Court does so. Although directed to file any submissions in reply by 17 March 2016, the applicant has not filed any reply.

3. Although the applicant has provided the Court with nine pages of handwritten submissions, of what are described as “grounds of appeal against sentence”, nowhere does he identify any question of law of great and general importance.  The gravamen of his complaint is that his sentence was out of kilter with other sentences imposed on other applicants to this Court or other defendants sentenced in the Court of First Instance.  In respect of the fact that his application is 5 years and 8 months out of time, the applicant says merely that he came to understand that his sentence was disproportionately high only in 2015.

4. In dismissing the application for leave to appeal against sentence this Court said that the starting point taken for sentence stipulated by the judge of 22 years’ imprisonment was “entirely appropriate”.  Also, we noted that the discount from that starting point afforded to the applicant was generous in that it was greater than one-third of the starting point.

5. There being no acceptable explanation for the application being made out of time, and there being no question of law of great and general importance involved in our decision, we refuse the application.