Yuen Ping v. The Queen
|
CACC000940/1981
----------------- Coram: Roberts, C.J., Huggins, V.-P., & Barker, J.A. Date of Judgment: 31st December 1981. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, V.-P.: 1. This comes before us as an application for leave to appeal against one sentence of seven years' imprisonment. The Appellant was charged in the District Court on two charges of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He was convicted on both charges and sentenced to seven years and four years respectively. He does not challenge the four year sentence. 2. The Appellant was arrested when passing through the Customs section at Kai Tak Airport. He was suspected to be carrying drugs although none were then found. He was taken to a hospital and there, after a time, he admitted that he had drugs in his rectum. The drugs recovered consisted of 73.52 grammes of a mixture containing esters of morphine and 149.6 grammes of prepared opium. 3. The Appellant pleaded Guilty to these offences: the Judge indicated that in the circumstances of the case the Appellant did not have much choice, and his plea is not particularly indicative of remorse, but it did save the time and trouble of a trial. The Judge did not, and expressly did not, give any credit for the plea. That could be right only if the seven year sentence, which was the maximum he could impose, was too little for the offence and if the Judge would have imposed a higher sentence had there been no plea of Guilty. According to the usual tariff for possession for trafficking of 73 grammes something in the region of three to five years would normally be imposed, and that of course would be imposed upon a plea of Not Guilty. The Appellant had a long record of previous offences of possession of dangerous drugs and it might be that a sentence towards the higher end of the bracket would be appropriate. Nevertheless we think the sentence of seven years was manifestly excessive. As we thought it was probably appropriate to interfere, we indicated that we proposed to give leave to apply out of time in respect of the second charge also, and we think that the proper sentences to be imposed in this case are one of five years' imprisonment on the first charge and two years' imprisonment on the second. As they were in effect all one incident, we make those sentences concurrent. 31st December 1981. Representation: |