HKSAR v. WU TSUNG HSIN
HTML content
CACC000456/1996
CACC 456/1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 456 OF 1996
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 114/1996)
____________
| BETWEEN | ||
| HKSAR | Respondent | |
| AND | ||
| WU TSUNG HSIN（吳宗信） | Applicant |
____________
Coram: Hon Stock JA and Hon Gall J in Court
Date of Hearing: 28 January 2004
Date of Judgment: 28 January 2004
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):
1. This is an application to treat an abandonment of an appeal as a nullity. The applicant was sentenced on 2 July 1996 by Deputy Judge Jackson (as he then was) to a term of 12 years imprisonment for trafficking in dangerous drugs. He had been caught at the departure lounge of Hong Kong airport with two packets of heroin, the narcotic content of which was 597 grams. The judge would have been justified in taking a starting point of 20 years imprisonment but took a lower point of 18 years because of the applicant's cooperation with the authorities and, giving the normal discount for a plea of guilty, arrived at the sentence of 12 years.
2. The applicant filed a notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence but was refused legal aid on 9 October 1996. That refusal is not surprising since the sentence received was perhaps on the light side given the fact that the recited assistance proved to be of little value. The applicant abandoned his application for leave on 20 November 1996.
3. Now, some seven years later, and two months before his estimated date of release, he seeks to revive his application on the ground that he is a native of Taiwan who did not understand Cantonese, does not understand legal procedure and did not know what he was doing. As to the merits he prays in aid the suggested assistance which was put before the trial judge and, before us today, expresses remorse for his conduct and mentions family circumstances which, if accurate, are deserving of sympathy.
4. The applicant has not established to our satisfaction that his mind did not go with his deed when he abandoned his application in 1996, and we would only add for his benefit that we see no grounds in any event which would warrant interference with the sentence.
5. Accordingly the application is dismissed.
| (Frank Stock) | (Thomas M Gall) |
| Justice of Appeal | Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Representation:
Ms Anthea Pang, SGC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent
Applicant, in person