THE QUEEN v. NGAI SHEUNG WAH

______

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Silke, J.A.:

1. The applicant was convicted after trial by jury of three offences. The first being trafficking in dangerous drugs and the quantity referred to in the Particulars of Charge is 452.78 grammes of a mixture containing 99.14 grammes of salts of esters of morphine; the second that of being in possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful, trafficking and the quantity there, was 30.63 grammes of a mixture containing 4.82 grammes of salts of esters of morphine - this related to a quantity found in his trousers pocket - the third being also that of possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and related to drugs found in a flat in Boundary Street which amounted to a mixture of 4,416.80 grammes containing 900.17 grammes of salts of esters of morphine.

2. There had been indicted with him on a separate count in the Indictment one Ng Yun Choi. He had been charged with possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and the quantity was 452 grammes of the mixture which is, in fact, the trafficking quantity referred to in the first count as against this applicant.

3. The applicant had sought leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence but, on good advice given to him by Mr. Murray, he has abandoned his application in relation to conviction, and we are concerned only with the application in relation to sentence.

4. The sentences which he received were: eight years on the trafficking count, three years on the smaller count of possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and ten years on the count with tile larger quantity. These sentences were concurrent and the totality was one of ten years.

5. The main ground that has been argued before us very valiantly by Mr. Murray, and I would think at short notice, was disparity as between the sentence passed on Ng Yun Choi and sentence passed on the applicant. Ng Yun Choi was given a sentence of two years imprisonment. The basis for that sentence was first that he had pleaded guilty; second, that he had given assistance to the Customs Officers in relation to other drug matters; and third, that he had given evidence in Court as against this applicant.

6. That that sentence is a low one we accept. The quantity involved on the strict Chan Chi Ming⁽¹⁾ lines, could have led to a sentence of between five to eight years. The issue is: Is the applicant entitled to a justifiable sense of grievance? It has been said by Mr. Murray that Ng Yun Choi was also a courier in the drug trade involved with the applicant but it is clear from the evidence, particularly of the finding of the very substantial quantities in the flat of Boundary Street to which the applicant had access by way of keys, that the applicant was the major courier if we are to treat Ng Yun Choi as being a person involved with him.

7. This Court has not been persuaded that any sense of grievance the applicant might feel is a justifiable one. The quantities were very substantial and there were paraphernalia for the packaging of drugs found in the Boundary Street flat. He was clearly very fully involved in tide trafficking in dangerous drugs and the totality of ten years was by no means excessive. That being so, and despite Mr. Murray's valiant efforts, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

(1)    [1979] H.K.L.R. 491