TANG WAI-HUNG AND OTHERS V. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000376/1974
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 376 OF 1974
-----------------
| BETWEEN: | ||
| TANG Wai-hung | Appellants | |
| CHENG Chi-chung | ||
| TAM Chai-cheung | ||
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & McMullin, JJ.
Date of Judgment: 22nd October, 1974.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. In this case the three appellants were convicted of being in possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. In addition, the second and third appellants were convicted of unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs. They were each sentenced to imprisonment for four years on each count, the sentences of the second and third appellants were ordered to be served concurrently.
2. The first and third appellants, Tang Wai-hung and Tam Chai-cheung, appealed against their convictions. Their appeals were dismissed on September 11th, 1974.
3. The first and second appellants, Tang Wai-hung and CHENG Chi-chung, also appealed against their sentences.
4. The facts clearly show that the third appellant, who is a woman, was the seller of the drugs, the first appellant was the purchaser, and the second appellant was the carrier. The second appellant was a pak-pai driver and at the instigation of the third appellant carried the drugs to the place where the sale to the first appellant was carried out.
5. The learned district court judge who tried the case stated that the third appellant "was more involved in the transactions" than the other two appellants. And the evidence bears this out. The third appellant did not appeal against her sentence.
6. The facts show that the first appellant purchased more than 4,000 grammes of raw opium from the third appellant. And a further 10,000 grammes were found in the possession of the second and third appellants. We do not think that four years was too heavy a sentence for a crime of this nature.
7. However, we think that the sentences should reflect the finding of the trial judge that the third appellant had a heavier responsibility for the offences than the other two appellants.
8. With some reluctance, therefore, we allowed the appeals of the first and second appellants to the extent of reducing the sentences of four years to sentences of three years. The sentences on the second appellant are to be served concurrently.
Representation: