Sydney Denis Le Serve v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 801/1975

Court

Court of Appeal

Date28 Oct 1975

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000801/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 801 OF 1975

-----------------

BETWEEN:
	SYDNEY DENIS LE SERVE	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 28th October, 1975.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant, who is an Australian, pleaded guilty to being in possession of a dangerous drug and to committing an act preparatory to or in furtherance of an offence under section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. He was fined $5,000 on the first charge and eighteen months' imprisonment on the second charge. He appeals to this court against the sentence of eighteen month's imprisonment.

2. The act, the subject matter of the second charge, was that the appellant purchased five Buddha statues which were fixed to a wooden base in Thailand. These were to be consigned to the appellant from Thailand to Hong Kong where the appellant intended to remain at least for a short period. Upon removing the statues from their base and opening the wooden bases it was found that each base was filled with marijuana. There was a considerable amount of this drug present. The appellant told the court that this marijuana was for his own personal consumption. He was only in Hong Kong in order to fit out and purchase a vessel which was to take him to New Guinea. He told the court that in New Guinea, smoking marijuana is not considered an offence.

3. Mr. Polson, who appeared for the Crown, drew the attention of the court to three recent cases in which a foreign person has been found guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs in Hong Kong. In each case the offence was "trafficking in dangerous drugs" and in each case the drug was cannabis or marijuana. In each case the cannabis was not destined for the Hong Kong market but was being brought here for onward shipment. The court, on each of the three occasions, was content to fine the person found guilty of the offence. In one of the cases, in which 45 pounds of cannabis were found, the sentence was a fine of $150,000. In view of this, we think that the sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment passed by the District Court on the appellant in this case should be reduced to one of six months' imprisonment. This is not a case in which we can impose a fine as the appellant, who is a stranger in Hong Kong, told the court that he is without means.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Polson for crown.