Read the full judgment text of CACC 000366/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 January 2002 before Stuart-Moore VP, Mayo VP, Stock JA.
Criminal law – drug trafficking – methamphetamine hydrochloride (ice) – sentence appeals – consolidated appeals – whether mitigation that part of the drugs in a trafficking charge was for self-consumption should reduce sentence – whether 'social trafficking' without profit motive should be sentenced less severely than commercial trafficking – Attorney General v Ching Kwok-hung tariff bands for ice – application of latent risk factor from HKSAR v Mok Cho-tik – consistency of sentencing based on weight of narcotic – R v Lau Tak-ming and Anor – Chan Chi-ming v R – HKSAR v Manalo. The Court of Appeal held that a sentencer may, where appropriate, take into account that part of the drugs in a trafficking charge was intended for the offender's own consumption, but must examine such assertions with particular care in light of traffickers' tendency to circumvent stern sentencing, considering the quantity, packaging, location, paraphernalia, addict status, explanation, means, and record, and bearing in mind the sentence attaching to simple possession and the latent risk factor. In most 'mixed' cases, the practical difference in sentence will be slight. The court further held that social or non-commercial trafficking should not, as a general rule, attract a lighter sentence than commercial trafficking in Hong Kong, as the policy of consistent sentencing tied to the weight of the narcotic should be maintained to deter the supply of dangerous drugs to the public, regardless of the trafficker's profit motive. A1 had 68g of ice with packaging paraphernalia and was essentially a trafficker funding her own addiction, so no reduction beyond the plea discount was warranted (starting point 10 years, reduced to 5 years). A2 had 14g of ice with 320 empty plastic bags, making him essentially a trafficker rather than a mere social consumer (starting point 7 years, reduced to 4 years 8 months). Both appeals dismissed.
Legal issues: Effect on sentence of mitigation that part of the trafficked drugs was for self-consumption · Whether social/non-commercial trafficking should be sentenced less severely than commercial trafficking
Outcome: Both appeals dismissed. A1's five-year sentence and A2's four years and eight months sentence upheld.
Cited by 70 cases · Cites 4 cases