HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. TAM YI-YUEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
6216-EN-1997-02-26

THE QUEEN v. TAM YI-YUEN

HTML content

CACC000640/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL1996, No. 640
(Criminal)

 

THE QUEEN

AND

TAM YI-YUEN

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

Coram: Mortimer and Mayo JJA and Sears Jin Court

Date of Judgment: 26 February 1997

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Mortimer JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant applies for leave to appeal against his sentence out of time. He was sentenced by Deputy Judge Brazier on 27 August 1996 for two offences of trafficking in heroin. He was sentenced to a total of 6 years imprisonment. He did not seek leave to appeal against those sentences but on 14 November 1996 he applied to this Court for leave to appeal out of time.

2. There are two matters that he advances. He says all along he wanted to appeal against his sentence but this was not done because first, he discussed the matter with relatives in China to get their agreement; and secondly, with relatives in the United States to seek their agreement. He said that was why his application was delayed. The rules on time limits for appealing against sentence or conviction are clearly laid down. They have to be complied with unless there is very good reason for not doing so. This Court cannot give leave to apply out of time unless there is a good reason. The reasons advanced by this applicant are certainly not good reasons, so the application is refused.

3. However, before parting with this matter, each member of this Court has considered the papers with some care. The sentences which were passed by the judge after a plea of guilty were sentences which in all the circumstances were well within the proper range of sentences for this type of offence. The applicant was given credit for his plea in a proper manner. If an application for leave to appeal had been allowed, there is no basis that this Court can see for such an application being successful. In the result this application is refused.

 

 

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

 

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr A.A. Bruce QC and Miss Ho (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent