The Queen v. Wong Siu-ching

CACC000333/1984

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Yang, J.A., Silke and Barker, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 9th October, 1984.

Date of judgment: 9th October, 1984.

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Silke, J.A.:

1. The Applicant Wong Siu-ching was convicted in the District Court upon his own plea of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The offence took place on the 7th May 1983 and was committed together with one Lam Woon-tong. The quantity of drugs was 106.58 grammes of a mixture containing 31.28 grammes of salts of. esters of morphine. He received a sentence of 4 ,years' imprisonment.

2. In his 4¼ line Reasons for Sentences the trial Judge said:

"        Taking into account the charge (trafficking) the facts of this case, the mitigation put forward on behalf of prisoner and taking into account the sentence imposed on Lam on this (1st) charge, after trial, the plea of guilty by this prisoner, I sentence prisoner to imprisonment for a period of 4 years."

We have been informed that Lam was first tried on two counts, that is the first and the second counts on the Charge Sheet relating to the present Applicant. In respect of the present Applicant the Prosecution offered no evidence on the second count. At the conclusion of Lam's trial he was sentenced to a period of five years' imprisonment in respect of the trafficking count and three years' imprisonment on the second count - possession of a separate quantity of DD for unlawful trafficking. Those sentences were made to run concurrently.

3. It was accepted by the Prosecution that Lam was the main mover in the making of arrangements with an under cover police officer to sell ten packets of drugs. Both Lam and Wong had driven to San Po Road on 7th May, had picked up the under cover police constable and had sold him the packets which contained the quantities referred to in the first count.

4. In the light of the sentences passed upon Lam after trial, the second of which does not appear to have been considered by the trial Judge in this case, and that Lam was the prime mover, it could well be that the Applicant would have the justifiable sense of grievance he expresses. We think this is a matter for which allowance should be made. We grant the application and allow the appeal to the extent that a sentence of three years' imprisonment is substituted for the sentence of four years imposed.

5. I would add this that the Reasons for Sentence were of little assistance to the Applicant himself, for he is entitled to know in full the reasons why he is deprived of his liberty for the period indicated, nor to this Court in considering the validity of the reasons why that sentence was imposed.

6. I would further add that but for that which we think to be a justifiable sense of grievance in the particular circumstances of this case, the sentence of four years' imprisonment, of itself, would not be wrong.

Representation:

Applicant in person.

F.Wong for Crown/Respondent.