Leung Kwok-fai v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 529/1976 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of being in possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The two charges are in identical words, both as to the Statement of Offence and the Particulars of Offence; they simply read "Possession of Dangerous Drug (sic) for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, contrary to section 7(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance."
|
CACC000529/1976
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Pickering J.A., & Cons, J. Date of Judgment: 2nd July, 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of being in possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The two charges are in identical words, both as to the Statement of Offence and the Particulars of Offence; they simply read "Possession of Dangerous Drug (sic) for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, contrary to section 7(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance." 2. The particulars are that the appellant possessed a dangerous drug on the 14th February, 1976. The amount of dangerous drugs involved in each was not particularized. This is a procedure which is to be regretted. 3. The appellant pleaded guilty to the two offences and was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment on the first charge and to five years' imprisonment on the second charge. By that time the trial judge had been told the particulars of the amount in respect of each charge. Altogether there were 39 packets of dangerous drugs. 4. Another mistake in the record of this case is that the certificate from the Government Analyst was not included in the court file. However, the Crown supplied us with a copy on the morning of the hearing of this appeal. The amount involved was 107 grammes. 5. We think that five years' imprisonment is too high a sentence considering the amount of drugs involved and taking into consideration the pleas of guilty. It is true that the appellant has six previous convictions, two of which are for simple possession of dangerous drugs, but five years' imprisonment is outside the normal tariff for an offence involving 107 grammes. 6. In the event, we allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of five years be reduced to one of 3 ½ years' imprisonment which sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence of eighteen months on the first charge, which is confirmed.
Representation: Appellant in person. Macdougall for crown. |