Read the full judgment text of CACC 000469/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 March 2001 before Stuart-Moore VP, Wong JA, Stock JA.
Criminal law – sentencing – trafficking in dangerous drugs – heroin and midazolam – single charge covering two kinds of drug – proper approach is to consider the drugs together as a batch and apply the proper tariff rather than adding the individual sentences consecutively – HKSAR v Yip Pik-kwai [1999] 3 HKLRD 42 followed – judge erred in principle by adding four months for the midazolam on top of the starting point for the heroin – where the second drug is far less serious and the quantity very small, no additional sentence is warranted – sentencing for midazolam to be equated with methaqualone – HKSAR v Yiu Wai-chu HCMA 624/1997 and Attorney General v Chan Chi-man [1987] HKLR 221 – starting point of five years two months for the heroin alone was unobjectionable – R v Lau Tak-ming and Anor [1990] 2 HKLR 370 – cumulative errors in the sentencing remarks and correction of the sentence later the same day – importance of a written note before passing sentence – power to resettle sentence before the certificate is drawn up – Secretary for Justice v Yuen Lit-ping [1999] 1 HKC 476 – appeal allowed – sentence of three years and eight months quashed – starting point of five years for all drugs – one-third guilty plea discount with a slightly increased discount for the exceptional circumstances – substituted sentence of three years' imprisonment.
Legal issues: Whether an additional sentence for midazolam was warranted in addition to the heroin sentence · Whether the errors and circumstances of the sentencing hearing warrant a reduction of the final sentence
Outcome: Appeal allowed; sentence of three years and eight months quashed and substituted with three years' imprisonment.
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 1 case