HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1995

R. v. WONG KWEI LAU

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another
2015-EN-1995-08-11

R. v. WONG KWEI LAU

HTML content

CACC000226/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 226

(Criminal)

___________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
AND
WONG KWEI LAU

___________

Coram: Hon. Yang C.J. & Ching J.A.

Date of hearing: 11 August 1995

Date of judgment: 11 August 1995

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Ching JA (delivering the judgment of the Court):

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence of 5½ years imposed on the applicant on the 22nd of March this year on a conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The amount involved was 73.43 grammes of a mixture containing 31.02 grammes of salts of esters of morphine, the retail value of which was agreed to be just over $29,000.

2. On the admitted facts, the applicant was clearly trafficking. The drug convictions go back as far as 1977 and, indeed, at the time of her conviction of this offence, she was serving a total sentence of 21 months for two other charges of possession imposed in September 94.

3. The judge below used the starting point of 6½ years. The applicant was convicted after trial and the judge therefore could make no discount for a plea of guilty. On the other hand, a reduction of one year was made, having regard to the fact that the sentence was necessarily consecutive to the 21-month and being served and having regard to the totality principle the sentence, in the circumstances, was wholly justified and nothing has been said to show that it was wrong. This is yet another case of a hopeless appeal which should never have been brought. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with three months loss of time.

(T. L. Yang)(Charles Ching)
Chief JusticeJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr John Reading, S.A.C.P., for Crown/Respondent

Applicant in person