R. v. WONG WAI HUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 51
(Criminal)

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Mortimer, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant pleaded guilty to three offences of trafficking heroin before Deputy Judge Jones on 5 January 1995. He was sentenced to a total of 18 years imprisonment. He was 42 years of age at the time.

The facts

2. On 24 June 1994, the applicant was observed by police officers. He was seen to go first to 28 Man On street and later to re-emerge. He was followed to 34 Boundary Street and then back to Man On Street. When he came out from there he had a briefcase. He was stopped and in the briefcase was found a mixture of 2,741 grammes, containing 996 grammes of heroin. That was count 1. The flats which he had visited had in them drugs in which he admitted trafficking. In the Man On Street flat (count 2) there was a mixture containing 505 grammes of heroin and in Boundary Street (count 3) 603 grammes.

The sentence

3. The judge rightly took the view that this was one trafficking enterprise with a total of 2,134 grammes of heroin. He took into account R v Lau Tak-ming [1990]2 HKLR 370 in which the guideline for amounts over 600 grammes falls into the very large quantities category. This Court there considered sentences of over 20 years to be appropriate. In this case, the judge took as the starting point 27 years and reduced it for the guilty plea and other matters which he took into account in mitigation. Those being in particular that the applicant is a long-term addict; that his addiction had led to his involvement in trafficking; and that he has a family living in China.

The application and conclusion

4. Mr Buchanan who appears on his behalf submits that the starting point of 27 years was too high and points to a case in which for a larger quantity there was a sentence of 16 years after plea. The reference to such cases which have not gone to appeal before this Court is unhelpful. There are no particulars grounds on which Mr Buchanan can rely for his submission that the starting point is on the high side. We consider that the starting point of 27 years was amply justified by the facts and that the sentence imposed by the judge was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. This application is refused.