31 May 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's own admissions that the drugs might be made available to friends established trafficking under s.2 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and the sentence was within the applicable R v Lau Tak Ming guideline band with proper adjustments for Form 8 status and personal use.
11 Apr 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge gave comprehensive and correct directions and the evidence (quantity, value, circumstances and the accused's explanations) permitted the jury to reasonably infer possession for trafficking rather than personal use.
22 Mar 2016
The trial judge's adverse credibility findings were sustainable; the uncontradicted primary facts (possession of 10.08g of methamphetamine and multiple empty resealable bags) legitimately supported the only irresistible inference of possession for the purpose of trafficking; the renewed application and complaints about legal representation were unsupported and implausible, therefore leave to appeal was refused and two months loss of time was ordered.
21 Jul 2015
The court held that ordering a short consecutive term for a small quantity of drugs held for personal use, in circumstances where inclusion of that quantity in the trafficking count would not have altered the starting point for trafficking, was erroneous; accordingly the consecutive three months was quashed and all sentences ordered to run concurrently to respect the totality principle.
3 Jun 2008
The court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the custodial sentence from 8 months to 3 months because the objective conduct (possession for personal consumption, detected at exportation) did not justify the heavier sentence; the label of 'trafficking' due to exportation was held to have been given excessive weight in the original sentence.
11 Nov 1999
The Court held the trial judge did not err: having accepted the applicant's admissions and considered the factual context (quantity and distribution of drugs, cutting agents, scales, packaging, shared access to the room), she was entitled to draw the irresistible inference that the drugs were for trafficking rather than simple personal consumption; the alternative defence of personal use was implicitly rejected and the conviction is upheld.
16 Dec 1997
The Court upheld the conviction and sentence because the trial judge legitimately drew an overwhelming inference of trafficking from the quantity of drugs, accompanying paraphernalia and circumstances of discovery; there was no basis for appellate interference and the sentence fell within the Lau Tak Ming guidelines.
5 Aug 1993
The trial judge erred by refusing a Newton enquiry and failing to give the applicant's counsel the opportunity to call evidence on the critical mitigation that the drugs were for personal consumption; accordingly the Court of Appeal adopted the version most favourable to the applicant and reduced the trafficking sentence from five to three years.
26 Feb 1987
By a majority the Court held that under the Hong Kong Dangerous Drugs Ordinance the statutory definition of 'trafficking' together with the definition of 'export' covers taking dangerous drugs out of Hong Kong; therefore knowing possession plus taking out of the Territory constitutes exporting and falls within trafficking under s.2 and s.4, irrespective of claimed personal consumption; the presumption in s.46 is irrelevant to an export charge though quantity may mitigate sentence.
10 Aug 1979
When the Crown proves the primary facts activating the presumption under section 45 beyond reasonable doubt, the accused must rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; failing to do so will normally justify conviction. Applying precedent on quantities of opium, the original sentence was excessive and should be reduced to 15 months for 395 grams of prepared opium (plus 83 grams dross).