HKSAR v. LEE YORK SING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LEE YORK SING
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 26 November 1999
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal to the Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction)
- Case number
- HCMA624/1999
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 26 November 1999
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal to the Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction)
- Case number
- HCMA624/1999
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Magistrate correctly treated the appellant's case separately from his co-defendant; the appellant's admissions in his voluntary Record of Interview that he was paid to pack and was helping to dispose of the items amounted to trafficking as defined by law; the conviction was therefore safe but the sentence was excessive and was reduced from 15 to 10 months imprisonment.
Court disposition
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal sentence granted; sentence reduced.
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed
- Leave to appeal sentence granted
- Quash sentence of 15 months imprisonment and substitute sentence of 10 months imprisonment
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mary Sin, SGCLEE YORK SING
Appellant Counsel: D. Tolliday Wright, DLAAmounts and remedies
- Original Sentence (months): months 15
- Substituted Sentence (months): months 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal to the Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an admission by a co-defendant could be imputed to the appellant
- 02
Whether packaging drugs for another's consumption constituted trafficking
- 03
Whether the Record of Interview was voluntary and admissible
- 04
Whether the conviction was unsafe
- 05
Appropriate sentence for appellant's role
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the Magistrate relied on his common‑law wife's admission and imputed it to him, that packaging was for her personal consumption not trafficking, that the Record of Interview was wrongly admitted as voluntary, prejudicial evidence was not excluded, and that the conviction was unsafe; he also argued the sentence should have been for simple possession.
- Respondent
- Prosecution contended the Magistrate considered the appellant's case separately, there was sufficient evidence including the appellant's own admissions in the Record of Interview that he was paid to pack the drugs and was helping to dispose of them, packaging amounted to trafficking, and the Record of Interview was voluntary and admissible.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law principles on admissions and interview evidence
An accused's admissions in a voluntary record of interview may be relied upon and inferences can be drawn from them
- 02
Dangerous Drugs legislative framework (statutory definition of trafficking)
Packaging or preparing illicit drugs for disposal or supply falls within the statutory concept of trafficking
- 03
Appellate review principles
An appellate court will not interfere with a conviction unless it is unsafe or the trial judge erred in law or misappreciated the evidence
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Magistrate correctly treated the appellant's case separately from his co-defendant; the appellant's admissions in his voluntary Record of Interview that he was paid to pack and was helping to dispose of the items amounted to trafficking as defined by law; the conviction was therefore safe but the sentence was excessive and was reduced from 15 to 10 months imprisonment.
Obiter and limits
- Appellant was a reluctant participant allegedly acting at the instigation of his common law wife
- Appellant had no prior trafficking convictions, which justified a reduced sentence
Court disposition
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal sentence granted; sentence reduced.
- Appeal against conviction dismissed
- Leave to appeal sentence granted
- Quash sentence of 15 months imprisonment and substitute sentence of 10 months imprisonment
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 26 November 1999
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 26 November 1999
bjbj HCMA 624/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 624 OF 1999 (On appeal from NKCC 498 of 1999) ____
BETWEEN
HKSAR and
LEE YORK SING ____ Coram : The Hon. Madam Justice Beeson in Court Date of Hearing : 26th November 1999 Date of Judgment : 26th November 1999 ___
J U D G M E N T ___ The Appellant appeals against his conviction in the Magistracy on a charge of Trafficking. The grounds of appeal were chiefly that the Magistrate had relied on an admission of trafficking made by Appellant s common law wife, his co-defendant, when looking at Appellant s case and had imputed such admission to Appellant, and that the Magistrate erred in law in finding that the packaging of drugs could be classified as Trafficking when Appellant said he had packed it for the purpose of his wife s own consumption. Other grounds were that the Magistrate had wrongly admitted the Record of Interview as voluntary, that prejudicial evidence had not been excluded and that generally the conviction was unsafe. Having considered the Statement of Findings and the transcript I am satisfied that the Magistrate dealt with the evidence correctly, and, in particular he had considered Appellant s case separately from that of his co-defendant. There was sufficient evidence from which the Magistrate could find Appellant was trafficking; he was entitled to draw inferences from Appellant s admissions in his Record of Interview. In particular, the Appellant admitted the payment that he received for the packaging. Further, his admissions and the Record of Interview were made in answer to the specific suggestion or accusation that he had been trafficking. It is quite
obvious reading the answers together that what he is admitting is that he was helping to dispose of these items by packing them. That must amount to Trafficking in terms of the definition and this appeal is dismissed. Appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, his counsel suggesting that it would have been more appropriate in the circumstances for Appellant to have been sentenced as for a case of simple possession. I granted leave to appeal against sentence. Having considered the circumstances of the trafficking that show Appellant was a reluctant participant in a venture master-minded by his common law wife, and that his record shows he has not been involved in trafficking activities before; I consider that justice can be met by a shorter sentence. I quash the existing sentence of 15 months and substitute for it a sentence of 10 months imprisonment. (C-M. Beeson) Judge of the Court of First Instance Mary Sin, SGC, for DPP D. Tolliday Wright, DLA, for Appellant
PAGE -
PAGE - &`#$ &`#$ @\\SSLAI\HP LaserJet 4 Plus Ne02: winspool HP LaserJet 4 Plus \\SSLAI\HP LaserJet 4 Plus \\SSLAI\HP LaserJet 4 Plus 1997 No Shirley Leung Magistrate Microsoft Word 8.0 Judiciary 1997 No Title _PID_GUID .doc[ 266_@ CAJ07 Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.