HKSAR V.Sawangwong Chaowalit
Read the full judgment text of CACC 180/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 23 November 2006.
1. On 20 April 2006, the Applicant was convicted on his own plea in the District Court of two charges : one of trafficking in dangerous drugs, the other of simple possession. The dangerous drugs relating to the two charges comprised 9.94 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9.10 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, that is “ice” (the trafficking charge) and 2.74 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.73 grammes of ice and 0.66 grammes of a powder containing 0.64 grammes of ice.
|
CACC180/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 226 OF 2006) ______________________ BETWEEN
______________________ Before : Hon Ma CJHC & Burrell J in Court Date of Hearing : 23 November 2006 Date of Judgment : 23 November 2006 ________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Ma CJHC (giving the judgment of the Court) : 1.On 20 April 2006, the Applicant was convicted on his own plea in the District Court of two charges : one of trafficking in dangerous drugs, the other of simple possession. The dangerous drugs relating to the two charges comprised 9.94 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9.10 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, that is “ice” (the trafficking charge) and 2.74 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.73 grammes of ice and 0.66 grammes of a powder containing 0.64 grammes of ice. The Applicant has applied for leave to appeal against the sentence that was imposed. The sentence that was imposed by H H Judge Chua were terms of imprisonment of 50 months for the trafficking charge and 12 months for the possession charge, 3 months of which were to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for the 1st charge. The total sentence was 53 months’ imprisonment. Yeung JA refused leave on 30 August this year. The present application is a renewed one. 2.The relevant facts were summarized in the Judge’s Reasons for Sentence : -
3.In sentencing the Applicant, the Judge adopted a starting point of 75 months for the trafficking charge which was reduced to 50 months on account of the plea of guilty. For the possession charge, the Judge used a starting point of 18 months, reduced to 12 months with the one-third discount. Three months of this sentence was ordered to be served consecutive to the sentence for the trafficking charge resulting in total in a term of 53 months’ imprisonment as we have earlier mentioned. 4.In our view, the sentences were entirely in line with the applicable tariffs. For the trafficking charge, the Judge referred to the tariffs fixed by this court in AG v Ching Kwok-hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 and she was right to do so. 5.The Applicant has submitted in his written submissions that insufficient account was taken by the Judge of the fact that he had a clear record. In our view, the Judge was right not to give a further discount above the one-third already given for the guilty plea. In the circumstances and given the type of offences with which this case is concerned, a clean record does not merit a further discount. 6.For these reasons, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Ms Mary Sin of the Department of Justice for the Respondent The Applicant acting in person |