HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1996

R. v. LAU LOI FAT

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
2016-EN-1996-10-02

R. v. LAU LOI FAT

HTML content

CACC000226/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 226
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
LAU LOI FATApplicant

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

Coram: Hon Nazareth, V-P, Mortimer and Mayo, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 2 October 1996

Date of judgment: 2 October 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of 16 years' imprisonment imposed upon him for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2. The applicant was apprehended while attempting to board a flight at Kai Tak. He was searched and found to have in his possession a quantity of dangerous drugs. The quantity of narcotic content was 1252 grammes. This amount is slightly in excess of double what is referred to in Lau Tak Ming as being "a very large quantity" of dangerous drugs. The applicant pleaded guilty at his trial and everything which could have been said for him in mitigation was said by his counsel Mr McCoy.

3. Saied, J. was clearly well aware of the mitigating factors and adopted 24 years as his starting point and gave the applicant a full discount of 1/3 for his early plea. It is noted that the applicant tried to assist the authorities by providing further information but this was not possible as the information he was able to give was already known to the police.

4. This was a matter which Saied, J. was clearly aware of and must have been weighed in the balance in determining the amount of discount be given.

5. His distressing family circumstances would not be a factor enabling the judge to give a further discount in the sentence imposed.

6. The sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle and this application is therefore dismissed.

(G.P. Nazareth)(Barry Mortimer)(Simon Mayo)
Vice-PresidentJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr D.G. Saw for Crown Prosecutor

Mr Keith, J. Oderberg (Kitty So & Tong) for Applicant