HKSAR v. CHUNG WAN HOI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No.401
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

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

1. This applicant faced two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. In the first, it was particularized that on 28th December 1997, on the 4th Floor of 42 Temple Street, Yaumatei, he trafficked in 27.86 grammes of a mixture containing 21.08 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. In the second, it was alleged that on the same day, inside a flat on the 5th Floor, 322 Un Chau Street, Shamshuipo, he unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 890.85 grammes of a mixture containing 51.44 grammes of monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride and 651.50 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 80.74 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 80.55 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

2. The applicant pleaded guilty to those charges and was sentenced by Pang J. to an overall sentence of 14 years. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

3. The facts reveal that at just before 5 p.m. on 28th December 1997, police officers entered the premises at 42 Temple Street, armed with a search warrant. They discovered that the applicant was holding a packet containing the dangerous drugs, the subject of the first charge, in his hands. He was then taken to the police station and, not because he was forthcoming but because the police had other information, he was taken to the premises mentioned in the second charge - these were the premises where the applicant lived - and there, the drugs, the subject of the second charge, were found together with a plastic, a screwdriver, a pair of scissors and three electronic balances. On arrest, the applicant said "All had been found. What you want to do is up to you. I admit all these are mine, okay?"

4. The judge when sentencing said :

"...The only mitigating factor I can recognise in this case is your plea of guilty in the earliest available opportunity, and I accept ... that you are remorseful."

He went on to say, however, that trafficking is serious crime and that he would have to sentence in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the quantity of drugs involved. The second charge, he pointed out, involves 700 grammes of heroin and more than 80 grammes of "ice". He took into account the guideline cases and was satisfied, properly in our view, that a proper starting point for the second charge would be 21 years. As to the first charge, he assessed a starting point of six years. He was prepared to give a 1/3rd discount for plea which brought the sentence on the second charge to one of 14 years. He gave a discount also in relation to the first charge reducing it to four years and then ordered that the sentences be concurrent, making a total of 14 years.

5. The applicant today complains that the sentence was overall too severe. He raises personal circumstances, saying that his wife is suffering from lung cancer and that he involved himself in the dangerous drug trade in order to try to get money to provide her with hospital treatment. He says further that he was never associated with drugs before and that he is genuinely remorseful for what he did.

6. The judge took those matters into account when assessing sentence and, indeed, assessed sentence in a way that was as favourable as it properly could be to the applicant. There is nothing that can be criticized in either the judge's approach or in the sentence at which he finally arrived. This application must, therefore, be dismissed.