HKSAR v. Cheng Kam Sun

CACC000486A/1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No.486
(Criminal)

-------------------------------

Coram: Hon. Power, V.-P. and Stuart-Moore, J.A.

Date of Hearing: 2 April 1998

Date of Judgment: 2 April 1998

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Power, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant faced one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. It alleged that he, on 20th December 1995, inside Room 1119, Chak Tsui House, Wan Tsui Estate, Chai Wan, had trafficked in 193.91 grammes of a mixture containing 51.93 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. He was convicted after trial before Leong J. (as he then was) and a jury and sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. He appealed against both conviction and sentence. On 29th May 1997, he was refused leave to appeal against conviction and his application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed after his counsel announced that he would not proceed further with it. He now seeks to withdraw that abandonment and to pursue his application. He submits that it was abandoned without his authority. We do not intend to canvass the circumstances of the abandonment but to turn directly to consider whether there is anything which would, in any way, indicate that the sentence imposed was not a proper one.

2. The judge, when sentencing, said:

"So taking the most lenient view and following this guideline, I will adopt the starting point at the lowest end of the scale, that is a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment. I see no mitigating circumstances that would reduce this outside this bracket."

3. The judge was perfectly right when he made those observations. The suggestion by the applicant that he is old and has a heart condition is not one to which any merit could properly be given in a conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

4. If the appeal was allowed to be pursued it would fail in limine. We refuse to allow the abandonment to be withdrawn.

5. That application is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. Veltro, S.G.C. (D.P.P.) for the Respondent

Applicant in person.