HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1996

R. v. MA KWAI MING

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
5853-EN-1997-04-25

R. v. MA KWAI MING

HTML content

CACC000597/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 597

(Criminal)

_______________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
AND
MA KWAI-MING

_______________

 

Coram: Hon. Power, Ag. C.J., Mortimer & Mayo, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 25 April 1997

Date of judgment: 25 April 1997

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

Power, Ag. C.J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant in this matter faced one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He pleaded guilty before Judge Beeson on 2nd October 1996 and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and four months. He now seeks leave to appeal against those sentence saying no more than that he considers that it was too heavy.

2. The facts were all too familiar. He was stopped when he was in a lift and searched. Five plastic packets, which turned out to be dangerous drugs, were found from his left inner pocket and he admitted that they were white powder saying that he was keeping it for another person for a few days. Later at the police station he said under caution that Hing Chai, the other person, had promised to give him $1,000 to keep the drugs for him for a few days.

3. The trial judge before sentencing sought a training centre report and a drug addiction treatment centre report. The applicant was certainly not suitable for a training centre because he was a drug dependant. He had in the previous year already been in the drug addiction treatment centre.

4. The trial judge said when sentencing:

"I have considered whether or not a further Drug Addiction Treatment Centre programme would be suitable but have come to the conclusion that it would not in view of your long-term delinquency. In view of the long-term delinquency and your deep rooted drug habit, I do not think that the length of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre programme is adequate to deal with your particular addiction. Accordingly, I consider that a sentence of imprisonment is the appropriate sentence. On the Lau Tak-ming guidelines, this quantity of narcotic attracts a sentence of 5 years and up. I adopt 5 years as the starting point. I take into account your clear record and your plea of guilty. You will be given a full discount in respect of your plea, which is an early plea. I take, also, your clear record into account. You will be sentenced to 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment."

That sentence is squarely in line with the Lau Tak-ming guideline. The judge before imposing it took into account all of the relevant facts and was aided when so doing by the training centre and drug addiction treatment centre reports. There is nothing which would allow us to interfere therewith and the application must, therefore, be refused.

(N.P. Power)
Ag. Chief Justice
(Barry Mortimer)
Justice of Appeal
(Simon Mayo)
Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr. John Reading (Crown Prosecutor) for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.