HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1998

HKSAR v. LO KIN SUM

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
3207-EN-1998-12-02

HKSAR v. LO KIN SUM

HTML content

CACC000335/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No.335
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
HKSAR
AND
LO KIN-SUM

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

Coram: Power, V.-P., Rogers & Stuart-Moore, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing: 2 December 1998

Date of Judgment: 2 December 1998

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 10th June 1998, the Applicant was convicted of trafficking in a mixture containing 42.64 grammes of heroin hydrochloride following a trial before Deputy Judge Ma. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. Although he put in a notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction, he has not sought to pursue this. Accordingly, we can dismiss that application. He has, however, invited the court to consider whether the sentence of seven years' imprisonment was one that was, in the circumstances, too heavy.

2. This case was a straightforward one where the drugs were found in a flat occupied by the Applicant. He took immediate responsibility for the drugs no doubt in order to make it clear to the police who arrested him that other members of his family were not involved in the offence.

3. The judge clearly had the guidelines in R v Lau Tak-ming in mind when he passed sentence which he described as a "tariff" sentence. There is no doubt in the mind of this court that the sentence was entirely appropriate for an offence of this gravity.

4. The application is dismissed.

(N.P. Power)(A. Rogers)(M. Stuart-Moore)
Vice-PresidentJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr. D.G. Saw, S.C. & Mr. Richard Ma, G.C. for D.P.P./Respondent

Applicant in person.