The Queen v. Hui Sum-ping
Read the full judgment text of CACC 403/1983 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The applicant was found guilty in the District Court after trial of having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking 7.375 kilogrammes of raw opium. He told the court that he carried a bag containing these drugs across the harbour for, a fee of $1,000 but that he did not know what was in the bag. That story was disbelieved by the court and there is not any application for leave to appeal against conviction. The District Judge noted that the drugs were valued at $300,000 and that the a
|
CACC000403/1983
BETWEEN
_________ Coram: Hon. McMullin, V.-P., Li & Silke, JJ. A. Date: 2nd June, 1983. ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ McMullin, V. -P. : 1. The applicant was found guilty in the District Court after trial of having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking 7.375 kilogrammes of raw opium. He told the court that he carried a bag containing these drugs across the harbour for, a fee of $1,000 but that he did not know what was in the bag. That story was disbelieved by the court and there is not any application for leave to appeal against conviction. The District Judge noted that the drugs were valued at $300,000 and that the applicant is not himself a drug addict so that in the opinion of the Judge his motive was merely that of greed. He noted also that it was a considerable quantity of opium. He imposed a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment and a fine of $1 million with, in default of payment, a further year's imprisonment to run consecutively. 2. Upon the appeal the applicant merely asks that his sentence should be reduced and he informs us that he has a wife in China whom he has been supporting. He also informs us that he had been working in construction business since he came to Hong Kong some years ago and was at the time of this offence earning about $4,500 a month. 3. We can see nothing wrong with the sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. This is a large quantity of opium and its value is high upon the market. Moreover that sentence is appropriate on the scale of sentences indicated by this court in the case of Chan Chi-ming. 4. The fine however is another matter. There was no inquiry made by the Judge before imposing the sentence as to the means of the applicant, and a fine of $l million is clearly wholly unrealistic in relation to the means o?a man who is earning something in the region of $57,000 a year. There is clearly no possibility that he could ever have paid such a fine. There is no evidence upon the record of any other resources available to the applicant. We are satisfied that this fine is wrong in principle and therefore that part of the sentence must not stand. We grant the application and treating its hearing as that of the appeal, we set aside the order in respect of the fine but the sentence is otherwise sustained. Representation: Appellant in person. G. Alderdice for Respondent/Crown. |