HKSAR v. Lai Kwai Shing
Read the full judgment text of CACC 43/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 April 2000.
1. The applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug before Judge Day in the District Court and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. The particulars of the offence were:
Cites 1 case
|
CACC000043/2000 CACC 43/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 43 OF 2000 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 1100/1999) __________________
________________ Coram: Hon Mayo VP and Leong JA in Court Date of Hearing: 14 April 2000 Date of Judgment: 14 April 2000 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ Mayo JA (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. The applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug before Judge Day in the District Court and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. The particulars of the offence were: "Particulars of Offence
2. The Judge adopted a starting point of 6 years imprisonment. This was in conformity with the tariff laid down in R v LAU Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 for this offence. 3. The applicant has prayed in aid his difficult family circumstances. The sentencing Judge was aware of these. In a case as serious as this little weight can be given to personal circumstances. 4. The applicant referred to another case which had been reported in the press where the Court of Appeal had reduced a sentence in relation to an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The circumstances of all cases are different and very little assistance can be derived from the sentences which have been imposed in other cases. 5. The sentence was in no way manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The application is dismissed. As the application is devoid of merit we order that 2 months of the time that the applicant has spent in custody will not count towards the sentence he is serving.
Representation: Mr P K Madigan, SGC, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent Lai Kwai-shing, applicant in person |
Cases cited in this judgment