Lam Hak Hung v. The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 724 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Huggins, McMullin and Pickering, JJ.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Huggins, J.:

1.  The Appellant was indicted on six counts under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. These counts related as to the first four to drugs found and manufactured at the Kingsland Apartments in Nathan road. The police found the Appellant entering with a key a flat where they also discovered all the equipment of the manufacture of dangerous drugs. The Appellant was carrying a quantity of drugs. There were drugs found in the room where the manufacture had apparently been carried on and a further quantity of drugs was found in the cubicle which the Appellant himself occupied. The other two counts related to drugs and the manufacture of drugs at other premises. These were premises of which the police had no knowledge at all until the Appellant volunteered the information that they existed and, as a result of what he told the police, the premises were searched.

2.  The Appellant was at the material time aged 72. It is alleged that he was maintained by his son and that his son fell sick last year and was no longer able to maintain him. It is not necessary for us to make any finding as to whether that is correct or not, although it is not accepted by the Crown, who maintain that he is quite competent to earn his own living as an interpreter in Japanese. Be that as it may, this is a case where the Appellant has pleaded Guilty to the manufacture of dangerous drugs. Not only that, but he has a previous conviction dated 1962 when he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. It is said that the Appellant was very co-operative with the police and it is emphasised that he in fact revealed the second factory. That is true but, as Mr. Justice Pickering pointed out in the course of the argument, the Appellant was caught red-handed in respect of the first four counts and therefore there is very little mitigation in his plea of Guilty to these four counts.

3.  The argument on behalf of the Appellant is, in effect, a plea in misericordiam on the ground of humanity. It is said that if the sentence of ten years’ imprisonment which was imposed on the first Count and the fifth Count (being concurrent with the seven years’ imprisonment on each of the other counts) is served in full then there is every probability that the Appellant will die in prison. Be that as it may, in our view this is not a matter with which this Court is concerned. It has been said time and time again that the courts cannot regard it as a matter of mitigation that a person is either very young or very old when he has embarked upon the manufacture of dangerous drugs or involved himself in trafficking in dangerous drugs. Otherwise, as so often does in fact happen, those who are inveigled into taking part in the manufacture and trafficking will be the lame, the halt, the blind, the young and the old – people who may have some ground for pleading for the mercy of the court if they are in fact arrested. We cannot but take a very serious view of any case where somebody has been manufacturing dangerous drugs, the more so in a case where the appellant has a previous conviction for what was obviously a serious offence, since he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The plea in misericordiam which is addressed to us should not be addressed to a court of law. It may, if it is thought fit, be pursued by making it to the Executive, but, so far as we are concerned, we can see nothing improper in the sentences which were imposed and this appeal must be dismissed.

20^th March, 1973.