Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Hksar v Leung Chun Fung

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in 10 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date17 December 2002
Year2002
Citation[2003] 2 HKLRD 282
Judgement NumberCACC373/2002
Subject MatterCriminal Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACC000373/2002 HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUN FUNG

CACC000373/2002

CACC 373/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 175 OF 2002)

_______________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
LEUNG CHUN FUNG Applicant

_______________

Coram: Hon Cheung JA and Hon Yeung JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 17 December 2002

Date of Judgment: 17 December 2002

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon. Cheung J.A. : (giving the judgment of the court)

Appeal against sentence

1. The applicant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to three counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was committed for sentence to the Court of First Instance of the High Court.

2. The first count was in respect of 34.87 grams of heroin hydrochloride. The second count was in respect of 560.08 grams of heroin hydrochloride. The third count was for 0.56 grams of ketamine. The total quantity of the heroin was 594.95 grams.

3. Deputy High Court Judge Toh used a starting point of 20 years' imprisonment as the sentence for the three lots of drugs. She reduced it by one third because of the guilty plea. The final sentence was 13 years and four months' imprisonment. She apportioned the individual sentences as follows :

(1) the sentence for the first count was four years' imprisonment,

(2) the second count was 13 years and four months' imprisonment and

(3) the third count was one year's imprisonment,

all three sentences to be served concurrently.

4. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

Facts

5. There is nothing unusual about the facts of the case. The applicant was stopped in the street in which dangerous drugs were found in his underpants. Later on, more drugs were found at the premises in which the applicant had the key. Drugs were also found in a locker in another premise in which the applicant had the key.

Ground of appeal

6. The ground of appeal is mainly that he was led astray by other criminals. He was remorseful for the offence. During the imprisonment, he managed to improve himself. He had taken and passed the Pitman Chinese examination.

Heroin

7. In R v. Lau Tak Ming [1990] HKLR 370, the guideline for trafficking 400 to 600 grams of heroin is imprisonment of 15 to 20 years. The heroin content in this case is just slightly less than 600 grams.

8. The applicant has just turned 19 at the time of the offence. He obviously was not a hardened criminal. Although he had two previous convictions, they were of relatively minor nature. One was for possession of dangerous drugs for which he was fined and the other was for possession of Part I Poison for which he was put on probation.

9. Taking these factors into account, we are of the view that instead of imposing the maximum of 20 years' imprisonment under the tariff, a more appropriate starting point is 19 years' imprisonment. Given the one third discount for his guilty plea, we will adopt an overall sentence of 12 years' imprisonment.

10. As for the individual sentences, the first count is four years' imprisonment and the second count is 12 years' imprisonment.

Ketamine

11. As to the third count relating to the ketamine, we are of the view that the one year's imprisonment is excessive. There...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Hksar v Cheng Yat Ming
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • July 20, 2007
    ...[1998] 2 HKLRD 46 which was, in the absence of other guidelines, used as a basis for sentencing for ketamine in HKSAR v Leung Chun-fung [2003] 2 HKLRD 282) The judge calculated that a starting point of about 30 to 33 months’ imprisonment would be justified for the ketamine standing by 7. Wi......
  • Hksar v Yeung Ka Chun, Gary
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • November 11, 2008
    ...to the recent decision in Hii Siew Cheng was to proceed on the assumption that the same tariff was applied: see HKSAR v Leung Chun Fung [2003] 2 HKLRD 282; HKSAR v Mok Yiu Kau [2007] 4 HKC 586; and HKSAR v Yung Ka Kin CACC 240 of 2007 (9 January 2008, 2. This applicant was sentenced on 1 De......
  • Hksar v Su Hui Feng
    • Hong Kong
    • High Court (Hong Kong)
    • September 8, 2005
    ...Other drugs included cannabis (17.5 grammes) and ecstacy (4.76 grammes.) 4. The guidelines for Ketamine (HKSAR v. Leung Chun Fung) [2003] 2 HKLRD 282) as laid down by the Court of Appeal are the same as those for Ecstacy. HKSAR v. Lee Tak-kwan [1998] 2 HKLRD 46 puts this Appellant in the se......
  • Hksar v Lam Chi Wa
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • November 28, 2008
    ...after trial for amounts of 400 to 800 grammes of Ketamine (see HKSAR v. Lee Tak Kwan [1998] 2 HKLRD 46, 55 and HKSAR v. Leung Chun Fung [2003] 2 HKLRD 282, 283). The proper starting point for sentence for an amount of 449.07 grammes, as Ms Anthea Pang SADPP for the respondent has correctly ......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT