HKSAR v. MD SHAJU
- Citation
- [2018] HKCA 869
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 21 November 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence (refused)
- Case number
- CACC187/2018
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 21 November 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence (refused)
- Case number
- CACC187/2018
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied the tariff guidelines, properly assessed the batch of drugs and rejected a personal use defence, took into account aggravating factors (Form 8 recognizance and offending on bail), applied the one third guilty plea discount to each count and correctly applied the totality principle to arrive at a 4 year sentence; no error of approach or principle was shown.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal refused.
- Applicant reminded of right to renew application and warned of possible adverse consequences including directions as to custody time if renewal is unjustified.
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Miss Hermina Ng, SPP, Department of JusticeMD SHAJU
ApplicantAmounts and remedies
- Charge 1 Sentence (months): 34
- Charge 2 Sentence (months): 30
- Total Sentence (months): 48
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence (refused)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Charge 1 was properly charged as trafficking rather than possession
- 02
Whether the sentence of 4 years was excessive
- 03
Whether the one third discount for guilty plea was applied
- 04
Whether sentences should have been concurrent rather than cumulative
- 05
Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the totality principle and considered aggravating factors
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Charge 1 should have been treated as possession not trafficking; sentence was excessive; did not receive a one third discount; sentences should be concurrent.
- Respondent
- The sentencing judge correctly applied the relevant tariff guidelines, treated the batch appropriately, rejected personal use claim, applied one third guilty plea discount, took into account aggravating features (Form 8 recognizance holder and offending while on bail) and applied the totality principle to reach a 4 year sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
District Court tariff guidelines as applied by sentencing judge
Sentencing for drug trafficking must follow established tariff guidelines for quantities and culpability
- 02
General sentencing principle referenced in judge's reasons
Guilty plea entitles offender to a discount, commonly one third, if plea is timely and genuine
- 03
Established sentencing principle applied by Court of Appeal
Totality principle requires overall sentence to be just and proportionate when multiple sentences are imposed
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied the tariff guidelines, properly assessed the batch of drugs and rejected a personal use defence, took into account aggravating factors (Form 8 recognizance and offending on bail), applied the one third guilty plea discount to each count and correctly applied the totality principle to arrive at a 4 year sentence; no error of approach or principle was shown.
Obiter and limits
- The judge was entitled to ignore the small quantity of clonazepam for sentencing on Charge 1 as it did not add to culpability.
- The applicant was warned that renewing the application could lead to adverse consequences including a direction regarding loss of time spent in custody pending appeal.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
- Leave to appeal refused.
- Applicant reminded of right to renew application and warned of possible adverse consequences including directions as to custody time if renewal is unjustified.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal · 21 November 2018
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 Appeal
Judgment· 21 November 2018
bjbj CACC 187/2018 [2018] HKCA 869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 187 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 12 OF 2018) ___
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and MD SHAJU Applicant ___ Before: Hon Zervos JA in Court Date of Hearing: 21 November 2018 Date of Judgment: 21 November 2018 ___
J U D G M E N T ___ The applicant seeks leave to appeal the sentence of 4 years imprisonment imposed on him after he pleaded guilty to two offences of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The first charge took place on 2 September 2017 at the junction of Hollywood Road and Aberdeen Street, Sheung Wan, and the drugs involved consisted of 10 tablets of clonazepam and 48 tablets of Ecstasy (Charge 1). The judge ignored for the purpose of sentencing the small quantity of clonazepam as it did not add to the applicant s culpability under this charge. The second charge took place on 6 October 2017, near the junction of Eastern and Second Streets, Sai Ying Pun and the drugs involved consisted of 3.13 grammes of ketamine, 1.78 grammes of cocaine, two tablets of 0.39 gramme of Ectasy and 5.78 grammes of herbal cannabis (Charge 2). The applicant is a national from Bangladesh who at the time of the offences was a Form 8 recognizance holder. He was also on bail for the first offence when he committed the second offence. He complains that Charge 1 should have been an offence of possession of a dangerous drug and not trafficking of it. He further complains that his sentence was very long , that he did not receive the one third discount for his guilty pleas, and that the sentences should have been concurrent. There is no substance to these complaints. He was sentenced by District Court
Judge Dufton, who in his comprehensive reasons for sentence, correctly applied the relevant tariff guidelines in sentencing the applicant on Charges 1 and 2, and took the correct approach when dealing with the batch of drugs under Charge 2. He considered but rejected the claim that some of the drugs were for the applicant s own consumption, and properly took into account the aggravating features that the applicant was a Form 8 recognizance holder at the time of the two offences, and that he committed the second offence while he was on bail for the first offence. He discounted the sentence on each charge by one third for the applicant s guilty plea. He sentenced the applicant to 2 years and 10 months imprisonment on Charge 1, and 2 years and 6 months imprisonment on Charge 2. He carefully considered both sentences, and after applying the totality principle, came to a total sentence of 4 years imprisonment. No error or fault can be found in the judge s reasoning or approach in sentencing the applicant. This application is without merit and leave to appeal against sentence is refused. The applicant is reminded of his right to renew his application for leave to the Court of Appeal, but he is also warned of the consequences of doing so, which may include a direction for any loss of time spent in custody pending his appeal, if the Court were to come to the view that there was no justification for the renewal of his application. (Kevin Zervos) Justice of Appeal Miss Hermina Ng, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent The applicant appears in person
PAGE -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V gdi< gdIe gd ) gd ) gdw~ gd_j hRQ8 haG9 hw{v hLdY gd!+ gd!+ gdf% gdF(: ht5( ht5( ~wngc [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> setup hca.dot Windows User Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{32350B1C-2F74-470D-96D8-8B71D181D9C7}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 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.