THE QUEEN v. CHACK CHI MING

HCMA000307/1985

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 307 OF 1985

_______________

 

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN   and   CHACK CHI MING

_______________

Coram: The Hon. Penlington, J. in Court

Date of Hearing: 8th May 1985

Date of delivery of Judgment: 8th May 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. This was an appeal against conviction on charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs and possession of dangerous drugs for that purpose.

2. The Magistrate found that the appellant was involved in selling Methaqualone ("mandrax") tablets at Tin Wan Housing Area and there was ample evidence for him to come to that conclusion. I therefore dismissed the appeal against conviction.

3. The Magistrate said in his reasons for sentence - 18 months and 3 months concurrent - that he was unsure of the proper sentence as there were no previous cases he could find of trafficking in "soft" drugs. I entirely share his uncertainty on that. There have been cases in Hong Kong of persons arrested with large quantities - about 30-40 1bs of amphetamine which was going to Japan and sentences of 2-3 years have been imposed. Thomas "Principles of Sentencing" suggests that this sort of drug be equated with cannabis, which seems reasonable, and for medium sized quantities sentences of one to two years are right.

4. Mandrax tables are freely available in many countries overseas but it is a drug which can have very serious effects if taken in excess, more so probably than cannabis. The appellant was found with a total of 274 tablets and clearly was selling them to whoever came along. He has a previous conviction for wounding but none for drug offences. He is 21 and there is no evidence suggesting genuine remorse. Before me he said he was the main supporter of a large family and was working as an air-conditioner mechanic. He did seem to be very anxious to get back to a job to help his family.

5. Taking all those factors into account I reduced the sentence on the possession charge to one year purely due to his age and personal background. I do not think 18 months as a general tariff for trafficking in a medium amount of synthetic drugs is wrong.

(R. G. Penlington) Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. S. Pallaras, C. C. for the Crown

Appellant in person