THE QUEEN v. TAM IP CHEUNG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 921 OF 1987

_____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The appellant was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely, methagualone. The appellant nave evidence which the learned magistrate rejected. On the other and he said he regard the evidence of the police witnesses as "most convincing" and he accepted their evidence of the version of events. He found that "the evidence of the prosecution witnesses excluded all possibility of doubts on the charges''.

2. I find there is no merit in the appeal against conviction and that appeal is dismissed.

3. As regards the appeal against sentence the learned magistrate said "the guidelines for sentencing a first drug offender with previous convictions for serious offences would be in the region of trio or three years imprisonment.

4. Counsel for the Crown commented that the magistrate was probably referring to guidelines relating to heroin. I agreed.

5. The appellant has no previous convictions for drug offences.

6. The Court of Appeal in Attorney General and Chan Chi-man (1987) HKLR 221 set out guidelines, inter alia, for methaqualone. I appreciate the guidelines relate only to possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

7. The appellant was found guilty of trafficking in 8 tablets of methagualone. Although this was a commercial transaction the quantity of the drug was very small involving 1.S grammes. In my view the sentence of 2 years imprisonment is manifestly excessive (see Mag. App No. 290, of 1987) 1 allow the appeal against sentence to the extent that the sentence is reduced to 6 months imprisonment.