HKSAR v. ANUAR BIN MOHAMMED YUSUP

CACC 477/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 287 OF 2001)

_____________

_____________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Seagroatt J: (Giving the Judgment of the Court)

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Applicant appeared before Beeson J on 3 October 2001, having pleaded guilty on 24 August 2001 to trafficking in 2.45 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.36 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, popularly known as 'ice'. He had been arrested at Hong Kong Airport when about to board a flight for Kota Kinabalu. He is a Malaysian by nationality and had arrived in Hong Kong only 4 days earlier. The drug was concealed in 5 ziplock bags, strapped around his body. The retail value in Hong Kong of the drug is $857,500.00. He explained that a friend, whose full name he did not know, came to his hotel and strapped the drug on him, asking him to take it to Malaysia.

2. In arriving at a sentence of 16 years imprisonment, the Learned Judge took a starting point of 24 years which happened to be the starting point referred to by the Applicant's Counsel when he directed the Learned Judge's attention to the decision in HKSAR v Vhemy Axeln Supardi [2000] HKLRD 291. Her Ladyship also had in mind the guidelines in Attorney General v Ching Kwok-hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125, the key tariff case.

3. There, for over 600 grammes, a sentence of 18 years and upwards was indicated. This Applicant was trafficking in about 4 times that amount of drug. Bearing in mind the dangers of a mathematical progression, 24 years was a proper starting point as the Court of Appeal had indicated in HKSAR v Supardi.

4. In that case, the Applicant was trafficking in 2.087 kilogrammes or just over 3 times the 600 gramme guideline. The 16 year-term imposed by the Learned Judge upon this Applicant, took into account the plea of guilty which his counsel very realistically said was the only mitigating factor. There is therefore no ground whatsoever to justify considering interfering with the sentence, and the application is therefore refused.