THE QUEEN v. LEE CHI-KIN
HTML content
CACC000114/1986
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | 1986, No. 114 (Criminal) |
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN | ||
and | ||
| LEE CHI-KIN |
-----------
Coram: Cons, V.-P., Yang & Kempster, JJ.A.
Date of hearing: 9th July, 1986.
Date of delivery of judgment: 9th July, 1986.
___________
JUDGMENT
___________
Cons, V.-P. delivered the judgment of the Court:
1. The Applicant was convicted before Judge Rattigan, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court with a jury, of the offence of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking. He was caught at Kai Tak attempting to smuggle, presumably to Canada where he was destined, some 430 grammes of No. 4 heroin. He has suggested in support of his application that it was too heavy a sentence and that the Judge was biased against him. The Judge admittedly did say that people convicted in his court of drug offences need not expect any sympathy. We do not however think that that indicates bias.
2. The Judge took into account that the drugs were for export to Canada. We cannot however for ourselves see any difference between the need to protect the people of Canada from the effects of this pernicious trade and the need to protect those of Hong Kong. Both populations deserve equally the protection that the law offers.
3. The Judge observed that it was No. 4 heroin which was concerned in this instance, but does not appear to have placed any store by that fact. No. 4 heroin, as is well known, is a much purer mixture than the No. 3 heroin commonly found in these courts. Had the Applicant carried the latter we think that by applying the guidelines suggested in Chars Chi Ming(1) a proper sentence would have been in the region of 6 years. It would need to be higher in view of the actual nature, but in our view 8 years is too much.
4. We therefore allow the application, treat the hearing as the appeal which we also allow, and vary the sentence to one of 7 years.
| (D. Cons) | (T.L. Yang) | (M. Kempster) |
| Vice-President | Justice of Appeal | Justice of Appeal |
(1) R. v. Chan Chi Ming[1979] H.K.L.R. 491
Representation:
Lee Chi Kin, Applicant in person
G.J. McCoy Crown Counsel for Respondent