Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs

  • 28 Jan 2022

    HKSAR v. HO PAK HONG

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 176
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC153/2019

    Non-disclosure of the true fingerprint examination results was an inadvertent mistake but not prejudicial to the applicant's case so did not render the trial unfair; the unrelated subsequent conviction of the exhibits officer did not impugn the integrity of the exhibits evidence; and section 56A does not preclude enhancement of sentence where a minor recruits another minor, so the judge's one-year enhancement and total sentence of 14 years for the applicant acting as organiser/recruiter of trafficking involving 799 grams of ketamine was justified and not excessive.

    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Non-disclosure of evidence
    • Fingerprint evidence
    • Use of minors in trafficking
    • Sentencing guidelines and totality
    • Section 56a dangerous drugs ordinance

  • 24 Jul 2020

    HKSAR v. LOPEZ GARCIA, MANUEL ORLANDO

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 632
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC264/2019

    Refusal of extension of time and refusal of leave to appeal because the applicant provided no good reason for the long delay, no materially new mitigation was shown beyond what was before the sentencing judge, and the sentence fell within the lawful exercise of judicial discretion and applicable sentencing guidelines and was not manifestly excessive.

    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Guilty plea discount
    • Extension of time for appeal
    • Mitigation due to duress/human trafficking
    • Controlled delivery
    • Comparative sentencing

  • 30 Jan 2018

    HKSAR v. WONG CHI MING

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 62
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC203/2017

    In the absence of direct or credible evidence that specific parts of the haul were intended for personal consumption, a sentencing judge is entitled to reject a bare assertion of self-consumption and to apply guideline ranges for trafficking in the relevant quantity of Ice; applying those principles here, the starting point of eight years and the discount applied were within lawful sentencing discretion, so there was no arguable error of law or manifest excess warranting leave to appeal.

    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Self-consumption defence
    • Sentencing guidelines for methamphetamine (ice)
    • Newton hearing
    • Aggravating factors (previous convictions; multiple drug types)

  • 10 Jan 2018

    HKSAR v. YAN SIN MAN

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 6
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC367/2015

    The judge erred in allowing the jury to infer that the applicant authored the notebook entries and phone photographs and in permitting those records to be used as proof against the applicant of actual drug trafficking when there was insufficient evidence (no fingerprints or handwriting link) to justify that inference; the records could only be used, if at all, as circumstantial evidence of possession of records characteristic of trafficking and with limiting directions; the misdirection created a real danger of wrongful inference and requires quashing the conviction.

    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Hearsay and admissibility of documentary/photographic records
    • Drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence
    • Flight direction
    • Lies direction
    • Possession and control of premises

  • 3 Nov 2017

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG YUK SIM, TENNY

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHEUNG YUK SIM, TENNY
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC61/2016

    Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge was entitled to adopt a starting point of 21 years given the trafficking involved significant quantities of two different dangerous drugs, to enhance by 2 years for the international element, and to apply a one‑third discount for the guilty plea, producing a lawful and not manifestly excessive sentence of 15 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Starting point for sentence
    • International element (importation) as aggravation
    • Guilty plea mitigation
    • Comparative sentencing

  • 9 Jan 2017

    HKSAR v. YEUNG SEE MAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YEUNG SEE MAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC292/2015

    Because the applicant gave demonstrably untruthful evidence at the co-accused's trial, she was not entitled to any additional discount for giving evidence or for any alleged risk to her safety; the judge's assessment of starting point (20 years) and enhancement (one year) was justified given total quantity of Ice and prior convictions; allegations of counsel incompetence were without merit; leave to appeal against sentence was refused and a two month loss of time order was made under s.83W Cap.221.

    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Sentence discount for assistance to prosecution
    • Witness credibility and false testimony
    • Risk to safety from testimony
    • Starting point and enhancement for sentencing
    • Loss of time order under s.83w

  • 20 Jun 2016

    HKSAR v. DON AMARASINGHALAGE DON CHANDRA JANAKA

    Citation
    HKSAR v. DON AMARASINGHALAGE DON CHANDRA JANAKA
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC283/2015

    Because the judge failed, in the particular circumstances where the jury reacted adversely to being required to remain together overnight after a 4:3 split, to inform the jury the specific point that if after full discussion they could not agree they must say so (and to explain the effect of s27 Jury Ordinance), there was a real risk of unacceptable pressure on jurors; that risk rendered unsafe the 5:2 guilty verdict on Count 2 and required quashing of that conviction, while the unanimous conviction on Count 3 stood; retrial on Count 2 ordered.

    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Possession of dangerous drugs
    • Jury majority and unanimous verdicts
    • Jury directions and pressure
    • Inconsistent verdicts
    • Retrial following quashed conviction

  • 6 Aug 2015

    HKSAR v. TSANG WAI KEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TSANG WAI KEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC49/2015

    The Court held that the judge did not err in awarding a 40% discount: the appropriate discount for assistance without testifying is fact-sensitive and normally 40%–45%; on these facts Chim's arrest and plea were not attributable to the applicant and the prosecution had a strong case without him, so 40% was within the permissible range; the judge's stray remark about 50% being reserved for 'super-grass' did not affect the outcome.

    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Sentence discount for assistance to authorities
    • Guilty plea reduction
    • Co-operation and use of evidence
    • Sentencing guidelines for cocaine

  • 18 Nov 2014

    HKSAR v. LAU WAN LUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAU WAN LUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC205/2014

    For trafficking an aggregate of 32.25 grams of methamphetamine, the appropriate overall starting point was 8 years' imprisonment; applying a 20% discount for the guilty plea (entered after admissibility was determined) produced a total sentence of 6 years and 4 months; the concurrency order was quashed and modified so that 4 months of the Count 2 sentence run consecutively to the 6 year Count 1 sentence, yielding a total effective sentence of 6 years 4 months.

    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Sentencing guidelines
    • Guilty plea discount
    • Totality principle
    • Admissibility of out-of-court statements (voir dire)

  • 15 Jul 2014

    HKSAR v. TSOI SIN YEE

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TSOI SIN YEE
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC27/2014

    Where a defendant provides assistance to authorities but does not testify and has not been fully frank in pre-plea statements, a discount at the lower end of the 40–45% range is appropriate; applying that principle to the facts, the Court affirmed the sentence of 13 years and 9 months as not manifestly excessive.

    • Sentence discounts for assistance to prosecution
    • Unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs
    • Starting point and aggravating/mitigating factors
    • International element in drug offences