R. v. Chan Yee Lam
Read the full judgment text of CACC 543/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 April 1997.
2. Then offence took place on 12 January 1996. The applicant was on an estate in a lift lobby when he was intercepted by police and searched. He had in his hand a plastic bag which he admitted contained "white powder". He said he was delivering it for someone else for the reward of $2,000. The drug was wrapped in 124 smaller packages. It was accepted by the judge that the applicant was acting as a courier and the judge sentenced him to 5 1/2 years imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal again
|
CACC000543/1996 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1996, No. 543 (Criminal) _______________
_______________ Coram: Power Atg C.J. and Mortimer J.A. in Court Date: 4 April 1997 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Mortimer JA (giving the judgment of the Court): On 13 September 1996 the applicant was convicted after trial by Her Honour Judge Chua of trafficking in a mixture containing 21.06 grammes of heroin. 2. Then offence took place on 12 January 1996. The applicant was on an estate in a lift lobby when he was intercepted by police and searched. He had in his hand a plastic bag which he admitted contained "white powder". He said he was delivering it for someone else for the reward of $2,000. The drug was wrapped in 124 smaller packages. It was accepted by the judge that the applicant was acting as a courier and the judge sentenced him to 5 1/2 years imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence. 3. The history of the application is that it first came before this Court on 28 February 1997. At that hearing the applicant contended that he had given considerable assistance to the police in respect of drug matters for which he was entitled to credit by a reduction of his sentence. We adjourned the application so that enquiries could be made about that assistance. 4. The enquiries revealed this. On 8 February, that is shortly after his arrest, he did attend at the ICAC offices. He gave the police a lengthy statement. The effect of the statement was that he had been framed in this offence by the police who were protecting others. That involved investigation into his allegations and they were found to be groundless. He obtained a copy of the statement he had made before his trial. When his trial was first listed on 12 July 1996 in front of Judge Bailey, the applicant's legal advisers had been informed of the result of the ICAC investigation. The applicant applied for an adjournment of his case on 12 July 1996 which was granted. His trial then took place on 11 September before Her Honour Judge Chua. The result is therefore - as this applicant has known since before his trial - such assistance as he offered was valueless. It appears that he was seeking to lay a basis for some defence to this case. Having heard the case the judge convicted on the clearest evidence. 5. Turning to the sentence. His record was basically one of relatively minor offences save for a trafficking offence long ago in 1982 when he was sentenced to a detention centre. But he had also been to an addiction centre in 1992. It was accepted at trial that he was at the time of his offence an addict. The judge - faced with sentencing for 21.06 grammes - sentenced him within the second band of the Lau Tak-ming guidelines. For between 10 grammes and 50 grammes the range is between 5 and 8 years. Clearly the judge took into account such mitigation as this applicant was able to advance through his counsel. 6. He informs this Court today - as he did at the earlier hearing - that he committed the offence out of filial duty to his deceased father in order to pay for his funeral. All the matters that were available to him by way of mitigation were taken into account by the judge in sentencing him to 5 1/2 years. The judge took into account the mitigating factors which were before her. Even taking into account the matters that have been advanced before us - not of course any assistance - the sentence was a proper one. It is neither manifestly too long or wrong in principle. 7. The result of this matter is that the application is wholly without merit. The applicant has chosen to waste this Court's time. He has wasted ICAC's time. He has wasted the time of the Attorney General's Department by causing enquiries into these matters which he must have known were going to be fruitless because they had been brought to the attention of his legal advisers before his trial. In those circumstances that application is refused and we order 3 months' loss of time.
Representation: Applicant in person Mr D.G. Saw (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent |