HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1995

R. v. LIU KA FAI

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
4375-EN-1996-01-09

R. v. LIU KA FAI

HTML content

CACC000446/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 446
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
AND
LIU KA FAI

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

Coram: Bokhary, J.A. and Bewley, J. in Court

Date of Hearing: 9 January 1996

Date of Judgment: 9 January 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Bokhary, J.A.:

1. On May 23 last year, this applicant, a man in his mid 30's, pleaded guilty before HH Judge McMahon to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 25.54 gms of a mixture containing 18.19 gms of salts of esters of morphine. In order to learn more about the applicant's background, the judge sent for a probation report. Sentence was passed on June 13 last year. The applicant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence, contending that it is excessive.

2. The drugs in question, which were found on the applicant on April 19, 1993, were contained in 102 plastic straws.

3. While the applicant has been in trouble with the law before, this was his first conviction for trafficking.

4. The judge took a starting point of 51/2 years' imprisonment.

5. From that starting point, he allowed a discount of 11/2 years for the available mitigation, principally the guilty plea.

6. The applicant is right when he says that the discount given to him was on the low side. But we are concerned with the net result. And the starting point was also on the low side.

7. In our judgment, the sentence which was passed cannot be faulted as either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. So there is no scope for us to intervene; and we refuse leave to appeal.

(K Bokhary)(E De B Bewley)
Justice of AppealJudge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr David Chan (of the Attorney General's Chambers) for the prosecution Liu Ka Fai, applicant in person