HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1996

R. v. LUK CHI 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
4715-EN-1997-02-26

R. v. LUK CHI FAT

HTML content

CACC000480/1996

 

1996, Nos.480 and 481

(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

_______________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
LUK CHI FATApplicant

_______________

 

Coram: Hon Mortimer, Mayo, JJ.A. & Sears, J.

Date of hearing: 26 February 1997

Date of judgment: 26 February 1997

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

Sears, J. (Giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant was arrested in October 1995 and was trafficking, at that time, in 7.8 Krammes of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "ice". Whilst on bail for that offence, he was later arrested in December 1995, trafficking in 129 Krammes of "ice". He pleaded guilty to both of those offences.

2. Deputy Judge Kigour sitting in the High Court took a starting point of 10 years for the major offence and one of 3 years for the earlier offence. This was in conformity with the tariff for "ice" which had been laid down in Attorney General v. Ching Kwok Hung. For the pleas of guilty, he discounted the 10 year sentence to 7 years and the 3 year sentence to 2. He ordered both sentences to run consecutively, making a total of 9 years.

3. The applicant before us today was a person of previous good character who had entered a plea of guilty at an early moment. The main point he raises today is that the sentences should be concurrent rather than consecutive. These offences were wholly distinct and, as has been said, the second offence was committed whilst the applicant was on bail for the earlier offence. In our judgment, the judge was correct to make the sentences consecutive.

4. Having regard to the totality of the sentences imposed, one of nine years, we are not persuaded that it was in any way wrong. The application is refused.

(J.B. Mortimer)(Simon Mayo)(R.A.W. Sears)
Justice of AppealJustice of AppealJudge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr A.A. Bruce, Q.C. & Miss Ho, for Crown/Respondent

Applicant in person