Case Document

100%

CACC000639/1999

CACC 639/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 639 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 258/1999)

__________________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent

	AND

	LI LAP FO	Applicant

________________

Coram: Hon Mayo VP and Leong JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 April 2000

Date of Judgment: 14 April 2000

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Leong JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 19 March 1999 officers of the Narcotics Bureau intercepted a private car coming out from the basement of Dragon Centre, Yuen Chow Street, Kowloon. The applicant was the driver of the car. His girlfriend was sitting beside him. The car was searched and the officers found the dangerous drugs specified in the charge, packed in twenty-two small packets. The applicant admitted under caution that the drugs were his and that had nothing to do with his girlfriend.

2. The applicant was subsequently taken to his flat in Sham Chung Village, Tai Tong Road, Yuen Long where the officers found a hundred plastic bags which were similar to those used in wrapping the dangerous drugs found in the car.

3. The applicant was convicted after a trial. The Judge found that there were no mitigating circumstances and imposed the sentence he imposed along the guidelines in R v LAU Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370. Under those guidelines for a quantity of that specified in the charge the sentence would be in excessive of 20 years.

4. The Judge adopted originally 26 years imprisonment but later he reduced it to 24 years. The applicant today applied for leave to appeal against sentence. In his submission he mentioned to this court that there were two other drug cases, CACC 328/98 and CACC 386/98, in which, he said, the sentences imposed were less than the sentence he had received. In particular, he referred to one of them which he said involved 4,901 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and he said the defendant in that case received a sentence of 22 years.

5. In addition, he told this court that he was remorseful and he was only made use of by others in committing the offence. He asked this court to consider his family background and because his eldest brother was also a drug addict, his second eldest brother was unable to look after the family, he asked this court to reduce the sentence to enable him to be released earlier to look after the family.

6. In our view, the sentence imposed by the Judge was in accordance with the guidelines laid out in R v LAU Tak-ming. Having regard to the quantity of over 5,000 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, which the applicant was found to be trafficking, the sentence of 24 years is appropriate.

7. The fact that there are other cases involving different amounts of dangerous drugs sentences different from the present sentence had been imposed is of no relevance. In the circumstances, the sentence imposed, i.e. the sentence of 24 years imprisonment is not in any way wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.