Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000012/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 9 June 1995 before Power, V.-P., Litton, V.-P. & Mortimer, J.A..
Criminal law – dangerous drugs – trafficking in cannabis – sentencing – review of sentence under s.81A(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) – Court of Appeal's earlier sentencing tariff in Attorney General v. Chan Chi-man [1987] HKLR 221 – whether tariff applies to total volume of cannabis resin or to THC concentration – tariff applies to total volume; THC concentration relevant only to adjust within band – sentences of two years' imprisonment on two couriers of 51,230.45 grammes of cannabis resin with 2.29% THC concentration increased to four years' imprisonment on review – Attorney General v. Wong Kwok-wai (1991) 2 HKLR 384 applied – partial recast of tariff: lower bands (a), (b) and (c) consolidated to single band 'Under 2,000 grammes – Up to 16 months'; higher bands retained; cannabis resin treated as approximately four times stronger in THC than herbal cannabis and cannabis oil as approximately four times stronger than cannabis resin – discretion of sentencing judge not fettered – Attorney General v. Dil Bahadur Gurung Application for Review No.13 of 1992 referred to – starting point of 7 years for over 50 kg reduced to 6 years for very low concentration – final sentence of 4 years substituted for original 2 years.
Legal issues: Interpretation of the cannabis sentencing tariff in Chan Chi-man · Whether the sentences on the respondents should be varied · Whether the Chan Chi-man sentencing tariff should be recast
Outcome: Application for review of sentence allowed. The original sentences of two years' imprisonment on each respondent were varied to four years' imprisonment. The sentencing tariff for cannabis trafficking in Chan Chi-man was partially recast (consolidation of lower bands and updated concentration guidance).
Cited by 22 cases