Wong Hing and Another v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 558/1974 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The two Appellants appeal against their sentences imposed for possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The first Appellant received a sentence of 4 ½ years' imprisonment and the second of 4 years'.
|
CACC000558/1974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 1974 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins and McMullin, JJ. Date of Judgment: 19th September 1974. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J.: 1. The two Appellants appeal against their sentences imposed for possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The first Appellant received a sentence of 4 ½ years' imprisonment and the second of 4 years'. 2. The police stopped a motor vehicle which was driven by the first Appellant and in which were seated the second Appellant and another man. The first Appellant tried to escape but they were all arrested and in the car was found a parcel which contained 281.7 grammes of a mixture which containing 116.7 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. The quantity of drugs was large but not huge, but it is to be noted that both the Appellants had previously served sentences of three years' imprisonment for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs - one in 1961 and the other in 1962. Bearing that in mind the learned judge fairly said that there was little that could be said in mitigation, and nothing which the Appellants have said this morning would induce us to interfere with the sentences. 3. However, we are indebted to counsel for the Crown for drawing our attention to a remark made by the judge in support of the differentiation between these two Appellants. The judge said that he could not reduce the sentence of the first Appellant, as he could that of the second, on the basis of a plea of Guilty. It is pointed out to us that although the first Appellant did not plead Guilty he did in fact admit all the facts set out in the agreed Summary of Facts relied upon by the Crown, but the counsel representing the first Appellant took a legal point relating to intent. We think that it would be wrong to penalise the first Appellant because his counsel (no doubt with good reason) thought that there might be a legal argument in his favour. For that reason we will allow the appeal of the first Appellant to the extent that his sentence is reduced to four years, which is the sentence passed on the second Appellant. 4. The application of the second Appellant is dismissed. 19th September 1974. Representation: |