Read the full judgment text of CACC 000505/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 March 1995 before Macdougall, V.-P., Nazareth, V.-P. and Penlington, J.A..
Criminal law – trafficking in dangerous drug – heroin – manufacture of dangerous drug – sentencing – discount for guilty plea – discount for cooperation with prosecution – appeal against sentence – test for appellate interference – whether sentences manifestly excessive – surveillance arrest – fingerprints on heroin – existing sentence for robbery – consecutive sentences. Facts: The first and second applicants were arrested after officers from the Narcotics Bureau conducting surveillance saw them enter a flat in Tak Po Gardens, which the first applicant, the tenant, had opened with his own keys. On leaving, the first applicant was carrying bags containing blocks of heroin wrapped in gift paper. A search of the flat uncovered further blocks of heroin wrapped in the same way, two small plastic containers of heroin, and a large quantity of chemicals, formulae, and paraphernalia contaminated with heroin, pointing to a drug-manufacturing operation. Documents established the first applicant as tenant and contained formulae for the manufacture of heroin. The second applicant's fingerprints were found on adhesive tape attached to heroin seized from the first applicant and from the flat. The first applicant admitted trafficking because he owed more than HK$100,000 to a loan-shark and said he had been told by his boss to process and deliver the heroin to Broadcast Drive. Both applicants pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 371.42 and 862.17 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. Issue: Whether the sentences imposed on the two applicants were manifestly excessive or otherwise warranted appellate interference. Held: No. The sentences conformed to the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal, and the trial judge gave proper recognition to all relevant mitigating factors. The first applicant, who pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and undertook to testify for the prosecution, was correctly granted a 50% discount on a starting point of 14.5 years on count 1 and 22 years on count 2, giving concurrent terms of 12 years' imprisonment. The second applicant, who pleaded guilty only when faced with the first applicant's damning testimony, was correctly granted a 25% discount, giving concurrent terms of 18 years' imprisonment; he was already serving 15 years for robbery, so the judge ordered the drug sentence to commence five years after the robbery sentence, producing an aggregate of 23 years. Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused for both applicants.
Legal issues: Whether sentences for trafficking in dangerous drug should be reduced on appeal
Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused for both applicants.