R. v. Chan Siu Wai

CACC000149/1996

1996, No.149
(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

--------------------

Coram : Hon Mortimer, Ching, JJ.A. & Gall, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 27 November 1996

Date of judgment : 27 November 1996

-------------------------

J U D G M E N T

-------------------------

Gall, J. : (delivering the judgment of the Court)

1. The applicant was convicted on 27th February 1996 of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 680.75 grammes of a mixture containing 19.89 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

2. The facts of the case were that the applicant was introduced to two police officers at a restaurant and was said to have later met them at a service station where he handed over to them a quantity of drugs which they had undertaken to buy. These were the drugs set out in the charge before the District Court Judge.

3. The applicant raises two matters in respect of the conviction. First, that there was a contradiction between the evidence of the police officers as to the size of the blocks of the drugs, and secondly, as to the colour of the wrapping in which the drugs were wrapped.

4. It is true that different witnesses gave different details of the size of the blocks, and that the District Court Judge described the blocks as having been wrapped in gift paper whereas the first witness for the prosecution said it was floral paper. All these matters were fairly before the Judge who had the benefit of Counsel who represented the applicant in the Court below.

5. Further, the learned Judge found that there was no challenge to the continuity of the evidence relating to these drugs from the time they were packaged and handed over by the second prosecution witness to the duty officer - the chain of evidence was intact. We are satisfied that the learned trial Judge had all those matters which could relate to the contradiction between the witnesses in his mind when he reached his properly reasoned findings in respect of this matter.

6. There is nothing in these grounds of appeal and the application for leave against conviction is dismissed.

7. The applicant appeals against his sentence passed on the same day of five years and six months' imprisonment in respect of this charge. He complains that another accused in the same Court on the same day and with a similar quantity of drugs in respect of a charge of unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs received a sentence of three years and six months.

8. Sentences will vary between courts. We are satisfied that the sentence passed in respect of this applicant is within the guidelines set out in R. v. Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 and there is nothing in the appeal against the sentence. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr A.A. Bruce Q.C., S.A.C.P. and Ms A. Chan, C.C., for Crown

Applicant Chan Siu Wai, in person