Read the full judgment text of CACC 000120/1984 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 May 1984 before McMullin, V.-P., Li & Silke, JJ.A..
Criminal law – dangerous drugs – trafficking in dangerous drugs – sentencing – distinction between direct trafficking and possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking – applicability of CHAN Chi-ming tariffs – relevance of quantity of drugs – aggravating effect of drug addiction – disparity in co-accused sentences. Held, that the offence of direct trafficking in dangerous drugs is more serious than possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, and the CHAN Chi-ming sentencing tariffs apply only to the latter offence; therefore quantity alone is not the sole criterion for sentence in a direct trafficking case, but actual selling to the public is the overall consideration. Held further, that the absence of positive evidence of actual trafficking is immaterial both to proof of the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking and to the sentence to be imposed. The applicants, long-term drug addicts with no prior similar convictions, were observed selling small packets of dangerous drugs at a cooked food stall, with a total mixture of 16.66 grammes (5.06 grammes of morphine salts/esters) recovered from the stall and a nearby meter. The court held that their drug addiction was an aggravating rather than mitigating factor, as they were aware of the hardship caused by drugs yet chose to make them available to others. Although the trial judge drew a one-year distinction between D1 (4 years) and D2 (5 years) on the basis of relative activity, the Court of Appeal found no real distinction between them and noted D1 was fortunate to have received a lesser sentence. The sentences were considered light but not so low as to warrant intervention, and leave to appeal was refused.
Legal issues: Whether CHAN Chi-ming tariffs apply to direct trafficking as opposed to possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking · Whether the trial judge's distinction in sentence between the two applicants was justified
Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused. The court indicated the sentences were light but not so low as to warrant interference; leave to appeal was refused.
Cited by 1 case