HKSAR v. LAU CHUN SHING
HTML content
CACC000351/1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
1998, No.351
(Criminal)
___________________
| BETWEEN | ||
| HKSAR | ||
| AND | ||
| LAU CHUN SHING |
__________________
Coram: Hon. Power, V.-P., Mayo and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A.
Date of Hearing: 22 September 1998
Date of Judgment: 22 September 1998
----------------------
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
Power, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):
1. The applicant faced two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In the first count, it was alleged that on 15th October, outside No.1 Wong Chuk Street, Sham Shui Po, he trafficked in 53.78 grammes of a mixture containing 46.97grammes of heroin hydrochloride. In the second count, it was alleged that inside a room at Flat B, 2nd Floor, 4-10 Boundary Street, Mongkok, he trafficked in a much larger amount with a narcotic content of 439.57 of heroin hydrochloride. He pleaded to those charges before Wong J. and a jury and was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.
2. The arrest of the applicant resulted from a stop and search operation and he was then, having been arrested in a smaller quantity of drugs found on his person, taken to the residence mentioned in the second charge where the larger quantity of drugs were found.
3. The judge when sentencing pointed out what an appalling offence drug trafficking is and said, despite the fact that he was dealing with a young man, he had to impose a long prison sentence. He mercifully, however, took youth into account when arriving at the sentence he imposed. He took a starting point of 16 years which was in itself generous as a proper starting point would have been nearer to 17 years, and he discounted that starting point to an overall sentence of 9 years. The applicant could well have been sentenced but for the consideration given to his youth to imprisonment for 11 years.
4. There is absolutely no merit in this application. The applicant was leniently dealt with and the application is, therefore, dismissed.
| (N.P. Power) | (Simon Mayo) | (M. Stuart-Moore) |
| Vice-President | Justice of Appeal | Justice of Appeal |
Representation:
Mr. Francis Lo, S.A.D.P.P. (Ag.) (D.P.P.) for the Respondent.
Applicant in person.