THE QUEEN v. LUI CHUN HEI

Headnote:     Sentence: Dangerous Drugs: Possession for unlawful trafficking: Sentences consecutive to sentences imposed on similar offences committed while on bails Application no merit. Loss of time.

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Silke, V.-P.:

1. The Applicant, Lui Chun Hei, was convicted on his own plea upon an indictment containing four counts. Three of those counts were ones in which he was jointly charged with his wife Yeung Yuk Kwan. Upon his plea being entered, the Crown offered no evidence against her and she was acquitted.

2. The first count was one of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and the particulars related to a quantity of 41.88 grammes of a mixture containing 2.72 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. The second count related to 1,440.57 grammes of a mixture containing 77.48 grammes of salts of esters of morphine and was again one of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. That was a joint count. The third count was possession of offensive weapons, also joint, and the particulars specified three knives which were found in their possession at their flat. The fourth and last count was possession some 391 manufactured fireworks, again joint.

3. The sentences passed by Garcia, J, were eight years on each of the first two count concurrent, one month on the third count also concurrent and one month on the fourth count consecutive making a total of eight years and one month.

4. The Applicant had a previous history. On 29th April 1988 on two offences of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, dealt with in Fanling Magistracy, he was sentenced to a period of 24 months imprisonment on each consecutive. Both were committed while the Applicant was on bail for the present offences. On 14th June 1988, subsequent to the sentences here imposed on 2nd May 1988, the Applicant was convicted in Shatin District Court also on a charge of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He was sentenced to a period of three years' imprisonment. This last sentence was to run concurrently with all the sentences he was then serving. The date of offence being the same as one of the offence which attracted a 24 month sentence.

5. The Applicant had appealed one of the earlier 24 months sentences. On appeal, to allow the overall criminality of the two offences concerned to be reflected, that sentence was reduced to 6 months but to continue to run consecutive to the first 24 months sentence passed.

6. The result of all this is that the Applicant is now serving 8 years and one month consecutive to the 30 months or a total of ten years and seven months.

7. The facts of the present offences were that on 9th December police officer's were keeping a watch in Fanling near Fanling Lau. At about 7:15 p.m. they saw the Applicant leaving home and about to drive away. He was intercepted and the drugs in the first count was found in an envelope on the seat of the car. There were five plastic bags.

8. The Applicant's home was then searched and in the bedroom the Applicant pointed out a bag and that contained a substantial quantity of drugs referred to in the second count. The rest of the room was also searched, further drugs and packaging paraphernalia such as spoons, scissors, scales, envelopes and 782 small plastic bags were found so were the knives in count 3 and the fireworks in count 4. The Applicant admitted that he was a trafficker.

9. In his grounds and his address to us he has asked us to give consideration to the malting of all his sentences concurrent because of his financial obligations to his parents who are aged 60 and 62 respectively and to his two children aged 8 and 5. The latter are presently being looked after by his wife from whom he has become estranged.

10. It is clear that the Applicant's flat was a drug packaging and delivery centre, a factor which the trial judge, quite properly, took into consideration. He was also bore in mind the pleas of guilty. In imposing the sentences he did he said:

"I think any person who embarks on enterprises of this sort can expect very severe sentences and especially where drugs are sold, in fact, on retail terms."

We entirely agree.

11. The individual sentences imposed could have been higher. They were properly ordered to be served consecutive to the sentences imposed for the offences which the Applicant committed while he was on bail, given the overall period to be spent in prison and having in mind the persistent course of conduct engaged in by the Applicant.

12. We see no reason whatsoever to interfere with any of these sentences which were well deserved..

13. This application is totally without without merit. Six months of the period between the filing of the application on 17th May 1988 for leave to appeal and today is not to count towards sentence.

14. In so ordering we bear in mind that this matter was adjourned on 22nd November 1988. The six months does not contain any additional loss of time between that day and today.