Li Ming v. The Queen
|
CACC000684/1967 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 684 OF 1967. -----------------
Coram: Briggs, Mills-Owens & Huggins, JJ. Date of Judgment: 26 January 1968 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was convicted on his own confession on one count of unlawfully manufacturing prepared opium and another of unlawful possession of 4 pounds of raw opium, approximately 4 1/2 pounds of opium dross and 2 gallons of opium water. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on the first count and three years' imprisonment on the second count concurrent and he has appealed to this court against those sentences. 2. When this case first came before the Full Court there was an application for legal aid, legal aid for the purposes of the appeal having been refused by the trial judge. Although this court does not normally grant legal aid for the purposes of an appeal against sentence, that practice is based upon the assumption that everything which could be said on behalf of the appellant will have been said by counsel at the trial. In this case the appellant was not represented by counsel at the trial and having studied the record the Full Court thought it was desirable that counsel should be heard on behalf of this appellant. 3. We have now had the benefit of hearing a full argument and as to the first count we are of opinion that it would be unsafe to allow the sentence to stand. In the first place the appellant did not have the benefit of knowing the facts alleged against him in respect of that count. It is true that the depositions were before the court and if he had been asked whether he agreed with the evidence given before the magistrate no harm would have been done. He was not so asked. Moreover, he was not present during the trial of his co-accused. When he was brought into court no statement of facts was made but certain matters were raised which were highly prejudicial to the appellant and which he was not given an opportunity to answer. In particular it was suggested that he was "the prime mover" and was given no opportunity to refute the allegation. Apart from the fact that he was the tenant of the hut in which the manufacturing was taking place we can find no ground for differentiating between this appellant and his co-accused. 4. Counsel has also drawn our attention to the fact that the trial judge just before sentencing this appellant said that he had "a very bad record of dealing in dangerous drugs". From the record of his previous convictions we see that, although this appellant has been convicted of various offences of possession of heroin and smoking opinium, he has only one conviction of dealing in dangerous drugs (namely heroin) and that was as far back as 1955. On that occasion the sentence was one of only four months' imprisonment, which suggests that it was not a very grave offence. We note that this appellant pleaded guilty, whereas his co-accused went to trial. It is not apparent whether or not this was taken into account but we are satisfied that it should have been. 5. In the circumstances we have no alternative but to take the facts in the light most favourable to the appellant and, having regard to the matters we have mentioned, we think we should allow the appeal and, treating this as the hearing of the appeal, we reduce the sentence on the first charge to one of three years' imprisonment. We shall not interfere with the sentence on the second court and the sentences will run concurrently.
26th January, 1968. Representation: MacDougall C.C. for Crown/Respondent. Shears (Sydney Leong & Co.) for Appellant. |