THE QUEEN v. LAI KWOK WAI
HTML content
CACC000199/1986
1986, No. 199 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
__________
BETWEEN
| THE QUEEN | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| LAI KWOK WAI | Appellant |
___________
Coram: Yang, J.A., Power and Penlington, JJ.
Date of hearing: 13th June 1986
Date of delivery of judgment: 13th June 1986
___________
JUDGMENT
___________
Penlington, J.
1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. The brief facts were that on the 16th of October 1985, the accused was seen to collect a parcel from an unknown person who had arrived in a car at Sai Yee Street. The applicant was followed by a party of Police officers and eventually stopped when the bag was found to contain about one pound of heroin. The applicant made a statement and said that he had been asked by a person called Ah Chuen to collect the bag and deliver it to a restaurant. He was to receive a fee of $1000.
3. The applicant was refused bail in the Magistrate's Court but it was subsequently granted in the High Court. He failed to appear to a court hearing on the 14th of February in the Magistrate's Court and following the issue of a warrant, he was arrested on the 21st February. A search was then made of his flat and a smaller quuantity of drugs was found but also there were scales, plastic bags and equipment which indicated that he was engaged in not only being a courier but also in packaging heroin for resale.
4. The applicant has a previous conviction in 1978 for a similar offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking and the only thing that can really be said in his favour is that he is a drug addict, which fact was put forward and not contradicted, and that he pleaded guilty.
5. The applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment in respect to the first charge and 2 years in respect of the second, the sentences to be consecutive.
6. On the facts of this case, we consider that the sentences certainly do not fall outside the range laid down in Chan Chi Ming(1). We certainly do not consider that on these facts it is contrary to principle to make the two sentences consecutive.
7. We see no reason why we should interfere with the sentences. The application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.
(1) 1979 H. K. L. R. 491
Representation:
Simon Westbrook (David K. W. Tsang & Co.) for Applicant
W.P. Boucant for Respondent/Crown Prosecutor