HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1986

THE QUEEN v. TSE FAI CHANG

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
38934-EN-1986-11-05

THE QUEEN v. TSE FAI CHANG

HTML content

CACC000360/1986

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986, No. 360

(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

 

and

 

TSE FAI CHANG

--------

 

Coram: Yang & Silke, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 5th November, 1986.

Date of delivery of judgment: 5th November, 1986.

 

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Yang, J.A.:

1. This is an application against the sentence of 6 years passed upon the Applicant for possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

2. The Applicant has a very bad record: 16 previous convictions, 13 of which were drug offences.

3. The judge in passing sentence obviously took into consideration the substantial amount of dangerous drug involved, namely 34.75 grammes of a mixture containing 5.43 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. In the light of the guideline laid down in Chan Chi Ming, a sentence of 3 to 5 years would have been appropriate for that amount. The judge however imposed a sentence which went beyond that suggested by the guideline, obviously for two reasons. Firstly, the bad record, which the judge was entitled to take into account on the basis of Chan Chi Ming. Secondly, because the Applicant made up a false story and testified against the arresting officer that he or his colleagues had planted the drugs on him. In our view a sentencing judge is not entitled to take into consideration, for the purpose of assessing sentence, the manner in which a defendant conducted his defence: vide Thomas on Principles of Sentencing, 2nd ed., pp. 50-51.

4. In the light of all the circumstances, we would treat the application as the hearing of the appeal, allow the appeal and reduce the sentence of 6 years to one of 4 years.

T.L. Yang

Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Graeme Hagon (D.L.A.) for the Applicant

I.G. Cross for Crown/Respondent