THE QUEEN v. WOO WILSON

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986, No. 425
(Criminal)

__________________________

__________________________

JUDGMENT

__________________________

Si1ke, J.A.:

1. The Applicant was convicted upon his own plea of the offence of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The quantity concerned was 387.23 grammes of a mixture containing 40.95 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. He was also charged with an offence of assaulting a police officer, this having taken place at the time of his arrest, and to that also he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a period of 5 years' imprisoment in respect to the drugs count and 6 months in respect of the assault count to run concurrently, giving a totality of 5 years. He now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence of 5 years on the drugs count.

2. When this matter first came before us, we thought it proper that given the age of the Applicant of 20 and his clear record, we should provide ourselves with a background report from the Probation Service and also a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Services. The trial judge had not taken that course because he seemed to take the view that there was no good reason why he should impose a sentence outside the appropriate range of Chan Chi Ming[1].

3. We have had the benefit of submissions made to us this morning by Mrs. Yew and of reading both of the Reports. The reason for the commission of the offence was stated in the background Report to be that the Applicant's cohabitee had become pregnant and money was needed for the purpose of an abortion. He then became a drug courier in order to gain this money and, for the carrying the drugs concerned here, he was paid 2,000.

4. It was suggested in the Probation Report that there was lack of familial support but the Intake Report said the opposite describing the Applicant as having "a supportive family with caring parents and siblings".

5. It has been urged upon us that, as he is aged 20, has a clear record and pleaded guilty, greater allowance should have been made in the application of the guidelines as set down in Chan Chi Ming[1]. This submission is underlined, says Mrs. Yew, by the fact that his family are supportive of him and are present in Court this morning.

6. But those who traffick in dangerous drugs or deal in or with them are not persons who can expect to be treated with leniency by the Courts. As this Court has said before, those who engage in this trade use persons who are under a disability, such as youth, for the purpose of gaining the sympathy should they be caught. The sentence here was at the low end of the guidelines in Chan Chi Ming[1]. The amount of drugs could be described as in the first quadrant of the tariffs suggested. We do not think that the trial judge was wrong in passing the sentence he did nor do we think that it is, in any way, excessive. In those circumstances, the application for leave to appeal is refused.

[1]  [1979] H.K.L.R. 491