R. v. CHEN CHUN YEH

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 513

(Criminal)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Ching J.A. (delivering the judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant was convicted on his own plea on four charges. The second and the fourth were relatively minor charges of simple possession of dangerous drugs for which he received terms of imprisonment of three and four months respectively. The first and the third were for unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs on each of which he received terms of imprisonment of 15 years. This is his application for leave to appeal against those sentences.

2. As the Judge below observed, the sentences on the second and fourth convictions are dwarfed by and are subsumed by the sentences on the first and the third. The amounts in the latter were enormous. In the first they were a mixture of 41,833.01 grammes of a mixture which contained :-

(1) 19,538.06 grammes of morphine,

(2) 16.52 grammes of heroin and

(3) 454.71 grammes of monoacetylmorphine, which is an ester of morphine.

In the third they were 316.17 grammes of opium and two mixtures. The first mixture contained :-

(1) 34.20 grammes of heroin,

(2) 130.87 grammes of morphine and

(3) 1,265.27 grammes of monoacetylmorphine.

The second mixture was of 2,430.37 grammes containing 1,972.84 grammes of morphine hydrochloride, a salt of morphine. There was agreed evidence that a great deal of heroin of 100% purity could have been obtained from these drugs. Obviously the amount of the product of less than 100% purity would have been correspondingly more. It was admitted by the applicant's counsel in mitigation that the offences were very, very serious and that the entry and circulation of these drugs into the market would be disastrous.

3. All that could be said of the applicant in mitigation was that he was aged 88 years, was in poor health and was an opium addict. He pleaded guilty to the charges on first appearing before the Magistrate. In passing sentence upon him the Judge below would have started with 30 years but for such factors which were in his favour and would have reduced this to 18 years because of his early pleas. In fact she reduced it to 15 years because of his age. She commented, rightly in our view, that drug syndicates must receive no encouragement or assistance in recruiting aged people to work for them.

4. The only grounds put forward by the applicant are his age and the length of his sentences. There is nothing to this. We would remark that notwithstanding assertions of remorse in the Court below we have heard nothing as to his giving any information as to how he came to be in possession of or to be trafficking in these huge quantities. We can see no valid criticism of the sentences imposed and the application is dismissed.