Case Detail

HKSAR v. WONG WAI LUN

Related cases with same parties

CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
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
CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN

Files (2)

5051-EN-1999-08-25

HKSAR v. WONG WAI LUN

HTML content

CACC000512A/1996

CACC 512/1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512 OF 1996

(ON APPEAL FROM HCC 155 OF 1996)

BETWEEN
	HKSAR

	AND

	WONG WAI-LUN

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

Coram: Hon Nazareth V-P, Stuart Moore V-P and Keith JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 25 August 1999

Date of Judgment: 25 August 1999

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Nazareth V-P (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant, Wong Wai-lun, was convicted on 2 September 1996 of two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to a total of 24 years imprisonment. In March 1997 this Court refused his application for leave to appeal against sentence. On 9 February 1999 almost 3 years after his conviction, he applied for leave to appeal against conviction.

2. The only explanations he has given us for this very long delay and one that is compounded by his having already had an application for leave to appeal against sentence, considered and refused, are these. First, he says, that he had made applications for legal aid and asked for documents. Second, he says, the Legal Aid Department told him they had granted legal aid and then reversed their decision. Third, that when he received the documents, he found they were not all there.

3. Pressed about the reasons for his actual delay, particularly after dismissal of his application for leave to appeal against sentence on 7 March 1997, all he is able to advance as reasons are these. First, that he did not know the procedure. Second, that he concentrated on his appeal on sentence because he had heard from some acquaintance that one proceeded step by step, and he decided he would later on appeal against conviction after having dealt with the application for leave to appeal against sentence. And third, that eventually upon support from his family materialising, he decided he would apply for leave but then they were unable to raise the money.

4. We can find no justification whatsoever in these reasons for granting leave to appeal after so long a period. We accordingly refuse leave.

(G.P. Nazareth)	(M. Stuart Moore)	(Brian Keith)
Vice President	Vice President	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr I.C. McWalters, SADPP and Miss Winnie Ho, SGC for Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant in person

CACC000512/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 512

(Criminal)

_______________

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN

	AND

	WONG WAI-LUN

_______________

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

Date of hearing: 7 March 1997

Date of judgment: 7 March 1997

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Nazareth V-P (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 2nd September 1996, the applicant was convicted by Deputy Judge Jackson sitting with a jury in the High Court on two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The 1st count related to 95 grammes of a mixture containing 8.64 grammes of heroin hydrochloride which he was carrying on his person; and the 2nd count related to 1,436.59 grammes of crystalline solid containing 1,398.92 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "ice". Also specified in the 2nd count were quantities of heroin, cannabis and tablets of midazolam maleate.

2. The facts are of a familiar sort. The police kept watch on a flat. When the applicant came out he was stopped by the police. In a bag he was carrying was found the smaller quantity drugs for which he was sentenced to 4 years. The police then searched his room. They found the larger quantity of drugs specified in the 2nd count.

3. In his written application for leave to appeal against sentence, all the applicant says is that the sentence is too heavy and his parents are old and need his care.

4. The sentence is not too heavy. "Ice" is one of the worst types of hard drugs. He had a huge quantity of "ice". The judge was perfectly entitled to award the sentence of 24 years which was entirely in accordance with the guidelines and, of course, he made the 4 years on the other charge concurrent. It is well established that the care the parents may need is not a good ground for reducing sentences. If one is concerned about one's parents, one should avoid in the first place getting involved in this sort of offence which inflicts great misery on the parents of those who get addicted to such drugs.

5. Plainly, there is not the slightest merit in the grounds of appeal. We dismiss his application.

(G.P. Nazareth)	(Barry Mortimer)	(Simon Mayo)
Vice President	Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr A.A. Bruce QC and Mr Edmond Lee (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent