Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000015/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 19 April 2002 before Stuart-Moore VP, Mayo VP and Seagroatt J.
Criminal law – sentencing – drug trafficking – methamphetamine hydrochloride ('ice') and cannabis – application by Secretary for Justice under s.81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) to review sentence – training centre order imposed on 18-year-old respondent (D2) on guilty plea to four counts involving approximately 39.58 grammes of 'ice' and 27.61 grammes of cannabis, with agreed further supply of around 28 grammes of 'ice' – whether training centre order was appropriate – whether sentence was manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle – role of deterrence in drug trafficking cases – weight to be given to age, clear record and guilty plea – whether exceptional circumstances existed to displace custodial tariff – starting point for trafficking in 10 to 70 grammes of 'ice' under Attorney General v Ching Kwok-hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 – application of R v Lau Tak-ming & Ors [1990] 2 HKLR 370 on limited weight of mitigating factors in drug cases – Attorney General v Suen Yuen-ming [1989] 2 HKLR 403 and Attorney-General v Kong Kin-man [1997] HKLRD 350 on training centre orders being reserved for very rare or exceptional cases – Attorney General v Tuen Shui-ming & Anor [1995] 2 HKC 798 on sentencing for cannabis – application succeeded – training centre order quashed – total sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment substituted – concurrent sentences of four and a half years on counts 7, 8 and 10 and concurrent two months on count 9.
Legal issues: Whether a training centre order was appropriate for trafficking in substantial quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride · Appropriate starting point and discount for trafficking in 10 to 70 grammes of 'ice' · Application of totality and disparity with co-defendant in substituting sentence
Outcome: Application for review of sentence succeeded; training centre order quashed as manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle; sentences substituted.
Cited by 16 cases