Read the full judgment text of CAAR 4/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 12 May 2023 before Macrae VP, Zervos JA, M Poon JA.
Criminal law – sentencing – trafficking in dangerous drugs – cocaine – Training Centre Order – whether wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate – whether youthful offender and mental health justify departure from imprisonment – consistency of sentence – review of sentence under s.81A Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) – dangerous drug of 214 grammes of solid containing 190 grammes of cocaine contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap 134) – respondent aged 17 years and 1 month at time of offence with clear record – transitory adjustment disorder arising from failed teenage relationship which had subsided by December 2020 – respondent played role of simple courier manipulated by older criminal minds for payment of $1,200 – court below made Training Centre Order following adjournment for Suitability Report – Secretary for Justice applied for review contending sentence wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate – whether Training Centre Order was permissible in serious drug trafficking case – whether respondent of extreme youth – whether mental health evidence justified non-custodial training option – whether sentence consistent with comparable authorities – held that Training Centre Order was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate – in drug trafficking cases, deterrence takes precedence over rehabilitation and training centre orders are rarely appropriate – Wong Chun Cheong v HKSAR established that training centre option may be rejected where need for deterrent sentences outweighs rehabilitative needs – Herry Jane Yusuph emphasised importance of consistency of sentence in drug trafficking – Lau Shing Kit and Chau Tsz Tim had already criticised training centre orders in serious drug cases – respondent was not of extreme youth and his adjustment disorder was transitory – judge below erred in treating his mental health as a permanent affliction and in comparing notional sentence with maximum Training Centre period – sentence of 4 years' imprisonment substituted – application allowed.
Legal issues: Whether a Training Centre Order was wrong in principle for trafficking 190g of cocaine · Whether the respondent's youth and mental health justified departure from imprisonment · Whether the sentence was out of line with similar cases
Outcome: Application for review allowed; the Training Centre Order was set aside and substituted with a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases