R. v. Chan Tai Fai

CACC000176/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No.176
(Criminal)

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

Coram: Hon. Power, Ag. C.J., Mortimer, J.A. and Stuart-Moore, J.

Date of Hearing: 4 October 1996

Date of Judgment: 4 October 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, Ag. C.J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. In this matter the applicant faced one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug which was particularized that he, on 16th May 1995, inside the male toilet at the Lucky House Seafood Restaurant in Tai Kok Tsui, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 469.25 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 416.89 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. This is a drug which is commonly known as "ice". He pleaded guilty to that charge but not until the second day of the trial after a number of witnesses had appeared and been cross-examined.

2. Burrell, J. when sentencing said:

"..... you have now pleaded guilty to a very serious offence of trafficking the dangerous drug known as ice. Ice is recognised as a particularly dangerous drug, the trafficking of which is on the increase in Hong Kong. ................ the usual sentence, after a trial involving, almost half a kilogramme of ice, would be at least 15 years' imprisonment. You are entitled to a reduction of that sentence because you have pleaded guilty.

A plea of guilty at the first opportunity would normally attract a reduction of one-third, but I cannot give you that full discount because your plea has come at the end of the prosecution evidence, in which, upon your instructions, a serious attack was made on the prosecution witnesses. However, this court takes the view that all pleas of guilty should be recognised and encouraged at whatever stage they come, and I shall, therefore, reduce your sentence by more than a token amount."

The judge then reduced it from 15 years to 12 years. The starting point was squarely within the applicable guidelines (The Attorney General v. Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125) and the reduction was, in the circumstances, a proper one. There is nothing that would allow us to interfere with the sentence imposed.

3. The application must be refused.

Representation:

Mr. W.D. Moultrie, S.C.C., for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.