Chong Chi-ling v. The Queen
|
CACC000057/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Briggs, Huggins and Leonard JJ. Date of Judgment: 13th April, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant pleaded guilty to being in possession of 12.46 kilogrammes of opium for the purpose of unlawful trafficking contrary to Section 7 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. 2. On the afternoon of November 10, 1971 the police, acting on information stopped and searched a car driven by the Appellant. The opium was found wrapped in a paper parcel on the floor of the back of the car. The quantity of opium is about 25 lbs. The Court was told that the retail value of the opium before any processing was undertaken, was $98,000. 3. The Appellant is a man of 52, married, with a family. The facts disclose that he was acting as a carrier at least. He had one previous conviction for a similar offence for which he was tried in May last year. He was then sentenced to a fine of $600. 4. For the present case the Appellant was given a sentence of 4 years imprisonment. He appealed against that sentence. 5. In his reasons for sentence the District Court Judge said that since dealing with the case he had discovered "that it is not now possible to convert raw opium into heroin in Hong Kong, but that all heroin manufactured here is imported as morphine". 6. The learned judge said that this information had been given to him by the Crown during the hearing of another case with very similar facts at a later date. He added that if he had been aware of this at the time of passing sentence in the present case, he would have imposed a sentence of between two and three years only. 7. The learned judge therefore passed the sentence he did thinking that the opium might be converted into heroin Hong Kong. The consequences of the sale of such heroin would be more serious than the consequences of the sale of the opium in its raw states: traffic in the latter drug generally being thought somewhat less harmful than in the former. 8. While not endorsing the correctness of the information given to the learned trial judge, we consider that it is right to give effect to what is in effect a recommendation of a more appropriate sentence. 9. The appeal is allowed and a sentence of two years and six months is substituted for the sentence of four years. The time spent in custody pending the hearing of this appeal is to count towards sentence.
Representation: Ida Cheung for appellant T.J.R. Carolan, C.C. for Crown |