R. v. Yau Ching Ling

CACC000483/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 483

(Criminal)

______________

______________

Coram: Bokhary, Mortimer & Mayo JJA in Court

Date of hearing: 22, January 1997

Date of judgment: 22, January 1997

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Bokhary JA:

1. This applicant, a man in his early 40's, was tried in the High Court before Deputy Judge Jackson and a jury on two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2. The dangerous drugs the subject-matter of the 1st count were 110.40 gms of a mixture containing 81.66 gms of heroin hydrochloride. And those the subject-matter of the 2nd count were 50.01 gms of a mixture containing 35.40 gms of heroin hydrochloride.

3. There was no dispute that the drugs in question were found in the applicant's possession on February 1 last year. Those the subject-matter of the 1st count were found on his person. And those the subject-matter of the 2nd count were found in his home.

4. On each count, the question was: why were the drugs in the applicant's possession?

5. The prosecution said that the only reasonable inference was that they were in his possession for the purposes of trafficking. If so, he would be guilty of trafficking.

6. But the applicant testified that he had them in his possession for his own consumption. If so, he would be guilty of simple possession only.

7. There was evidence on which the jury could take the view on each count that trafficking was the only reasonable inference.

8. After a proper summing-up, they took that view and convicted the applicant of trafficking as charged on each count. That was on August 7 last year.

9. On the same day, the judge sentenced the applicant to a total of 10 years' imprisonment, doing so by way of a 10-year term on the 1st count and a concurrent seven-year term as the 2nd count.

10. There is no basis on which the convictions can be disturbed. Having regard to the quantity and condition of the drugs, there was ample evidence on which a properly directed jury could convict. This jury was properly directed. And the trial proceeded properly.

11. As for sentence, this is the position. The total quantity of heroin hydrochloride here, adding up those under the two counts, came to 117.06 gms.

12. The guideline sentencing range for between 50 and 200 gms of such narcotic is 8 to 12 years.

13. There is no basis on which a 10-year sentence here can be disturbed.

14. In the result, we refuse leave to appeal against conviction. And as for sentence, the application is out of time. We refuse an extension of time. We refuse it for the simple reason that no extension would get the application anywhere since it is plain that there is no basis on which the sentence can be disturbed.

Representation:

Yau Ching-ling, Appellant in person

Mr F Veltro (of the Attorney General's Chambers) for the respondent