TSE HUNG WAI v. THE QUEEN

CACC000685/1980

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
	1980 No. 685
	(Criminal)

 

BETWEEN
	TSE HUNG WAI	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Li, J.A., Baber and Addison JJ. in Court

Date of Judgment: 5th March 1981

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Li, J.A.:-

1. The appellant in this case was convicted of the offence of having in his unlawful possession of dangerous drugs, namely 4.26 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 0.96 kilogramme of salts of esters of morphine and 0.917 kilogrammes of barbitone. The facts are simple. On 12th December, 1979, at about 1.10 p.m. the applicant arrived at Kai Tak Airport on a Thai International flight from Bangkok. He was intercepted by a Customs Officer after arrival and it was found that he had a 1st class air ticket for that flight with a baggage tag attached to it. The applicant was then ushered to the baggage receiving counter from which he retrieved a suitcase, the registration number on the luggage tag of which corresponded with the number attached to the baggage tag which was attached to his air ticket. He was then taken into the Customs & Excise Office together with the suitcase. The case was searched and the applicant was given a body search with nothing found. Then the Customs Officer found that the suitcase was a bit thicker than an ordinary suitcase. He became suspicious. He drilled open the bottom of the suitcase. He found in the bottom and top linings inside the suitcase packets of the substance which were subsequently seized. On examination by the Government Chemist it was found that 4.26 kilogrammes of this mixture in those packets contained 0.96 kilogramme of salts of esters of morphine and 0.917 kilogramme of barbitone.

2. For the offence the applicant was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment. The applicant is about 23 years old at the time of the offence. He achieved the educational standard of about Form 2. He left school and worked as a lorry driver earning about $2,000 since 1978. He said that because of his inexperience and the attraction of a free trip abroad he was used by the drug traffickers. He also contended that he was merely a small nut in a whole wheel of drug trafficking.

3. In the court below the learned trial judge said that he must take a serious view of this offence and pass a deterrent sentence. We feel that the learned trial judge took the correct approach. It has been repeatedly said in this Court that when a person is caught in this type of offence his previous good character assist little in the matter. The applicant at the material time was 23 years old. Clearly he should be able to distinguish between right and wrong. Even though it was an attraction of a trip abroad, he should never lend himself to be used by the drug traffickers. Admittedly he might play a little part as a courier. We feel that without the assistance of the couriers the drug traffickers would not be able to operate in such an efficient manner. The total quantity of the drugs is by no means small. It is 4.26 kilogrammes of a mixture which is commonly known as No. 3 heroin in consumable stage. In the circumstances, we do not feel that a sentence of 9 years imprisonment is excessive. The application is refused.

 

 

	(Simon F.S. Li)
	Judge of the High Court

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

C.A. White for Crown