LAU CHING v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 850 OF 1972
________________________
| BETWEEN | ||
| LAU CHING | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
________________________
| Coram: Huggins, McMullin & Li, JJ. |
________________________
JUDGMENT
_______________________
Huggins, J.:
1. The Appellant was charged before the District Court with manufacturing a dangerous drug and with possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. After a trial he was found Guilty on the first charge and the learned judge did not return a verdict on the second charge because he regarded it as an alternative charge. He imposed a sentence of four years’ imprisonment for manufacturing dangerous drugs.
2. Some revenue officers were on patrol in a motor vehicle when an observant officer noticed a light in a place where it was believed there were no habitations. The party made its way up the hillside towards the light and they came to a house. As they approached, a man left the scene and was chased, but escaped. Other officers went into the house and they found the Appellant inside in the process of putting on some clothes. They found a large quantity of paraphernalia for making dangerous drugs and they found two tins containing some 3,000 grammes of opium.
3. The Appellant has appealed against sentence. He has not appealed against conviction, yet his address to us has been to the effect that he was not the person who manufactured the dangerous drugs. There was a large quantity of drugs but not very large. It was opium and not heroin and, as the learned judge said, there were nothing to show that this prepared opium was going to be refined further into heroin. Nevertheless, it is clear that drugs worth several thousand dollars had been manufactured. It may be that some of us would have imposed a slightly less sentence than was imposed by the learned judge but we certainly cannot say that this sentence was manifestly excessive and there is no ground upon which we can interfere.
4. The application is dismissed.
13th April 1973.