HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1991

THE QUEEN v. HO SIK YIN

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
874-EN-1991-11-08

THE QUEEN v. HO SIK YIN

HTML content

CACC000126/1991

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Criminal Appeal
No. 126 of 1991

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

AND

HO SIK YIN

-----------------

Coram: Hon. Silke, V.-P., Power & Macdougall, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 8 November 1991

Date of judgment: 8 November 1991

---------------------------------------

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

---------------------------------------

Macdougall, J.A.:

1. The applicant pleaded guilty before Her Honour Judge Chua in the District Court to being in possession of a dangerous drug namely 373.58 grammes of a mixture containing 49.76 grammes of salts of esters of morphine for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

2. The judge took the view that as the narcotic content of the mixture was at the top end of the five to eight years sentencing band he was "extremely lucky to have been brought before the District Court". She was also of the opinion that since the drugs had been found in a cabinet in his bedroom he had been "caught practically redhanded by the police", and that therefore the proper starting point for sentence was eight years. Recognizing that her sentencing jurisdiction was limited to seven years the judge then imposed a sentence of that length. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

3. It is plain from The Queen v. KWOK Chi-kwan (1990)1 HKLR 293 and The Queen v. SO Wai (unreported) Cr. App. 336/90 that some recognition should normally be given for pleas of guilty even where the trial judge is of the view that the offence properly merits a sentence which lies outside the limits of his jurisdiction. In the District Court when the starting point for sentence is 7 years imprisonment a discount for a plea of guilty must be made from the jurisdictional limit of 7 years, not from the starting point which the judge considers would have been appropriate had the case been heard in the High Court.

4. In the circumstances therefore we grant the application and treating the hearing as that of the appeal itself, allow the appeal, quash the sentence of 7 years and substitute for it one of six years imprisonment.

(William Silke)(N.P. Power)(Neil Macdougall)
Vice PresidentJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr. J.L. Abbott, S.C.C. for Crown Prosecutor

Mr. Rodney Pritchard assigned by DLA for applicant