HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1998

HKSAR v. CHAN KAI NAM

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
5960-EN-1998-07-10

HKSAR v. CHAN KAI NAM

HTML content

CACC000061/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 61
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
HKSARRespondent
AND
CHAN KAI-NAMApplicant

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

Coram: Hon. Mayo and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A. in Court

Date of hearing: 10 July 1998

Date of delivery of judgment: 10th July 1998

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and one count of possession. He was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment on the first count and 18 months concurrent on the second.

2. The amount of dangerous drugs subject to the first charge was a mixture of 230.29 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 216.69 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride known as ice. The quantity of dangerous drugs on the second count was quite small.

3. Gall, J. the sentencing judge adopted 12 years as his starting point and gave the Applicant a discount of 25% for his early plea. No reason was given for not allowing the usual 1/3 discount.

4. This is in effect the sole ground which is advanced by the Applicant. He should have received the full discount.

5. We allow the application and treating it as the appeal the sentence of 9 years' imprisonment is reduced to 8 years' imprisonment. To this extent the appeal is successful.

(Simon Mayo)(M. Stuart-Moore)
Justice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr. Albert Wong, S.G.C. (D.P.P.) for Respondent

Chan Kai-nam, Applicant in person