Cheung JA (giving the judgment of the Court):
上訴法庭法官張澤祐頒發上訴法庭判案書：

Facts of the case
案情

The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug, contrary to Sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (‘the Ordinance’), Cap 134, before Deputy High Court Judge M. Poon (as she then was). The dangerous drug in question was 1,444.12 grammes of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”. At the time in question, Customs Officer(s) intercepted the applicant at the gate of the departure hall of the Hong Kong International Airport and found on him upon search the dangerous drugs in question. Using 21 years as the starting point and reducing it by one third for his plea, Deputy Judge Poon eventually sentenced the applicant to 14 years’ imprisonment.
申請人在2005年6月30日在高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官潘敏琦(當時官階)席前承認一項「販運危險藥物」罪，違反《危險藥物條例》(香港法例134章) 第4(1)(a)及(3) 條。有關毒品是1,444.12克的甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽，即俗稱「冰」的毒品。案發時海關關員在香港國際機場離境大堂機閘截停申請人，並在他身上搜獲有關涉案毒品。潘法官採用21年的量刑基準，因為申請人認罪，故此扣減三分之一刑期，最終刑期為14年監禁。

Application for leave to appeal out of time
延展上訴期限

On 20 September 2011, the applicant asked this court to grant him extension of time to apply for an appeal against his sentence.
申請人在2011年9月20日要求本庭延展他提出針對刑期的上訴許可申請的期限。

The factors that the Court will consider in hearing an application for an extension of time are:
法庭處理延展上訴期限所需要考慮的要素是:

How long is the delay;
延誤的時間；

Whether the applicant has a reasonable explanation for the delay; and
申請人是否對延誤作出合理的解釋；及

Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds of appeal.
申請人是否具有充分的上訴理據。

View of the Court
本庭的意見

In this case, the application was made more than 6 years out of time, which is a very lengthy period. In 2005 when the applicant pleaded guilty, he was represented and thus he ought to have known his right to appeal. The applicant explained that the reason for his delay was that prior to this, he failed to find a case justifying his appeal. We do not consider this to be a reasonable explanation.
在本案，申請人延誤的時間超過六年,這是一段非常長的時間。申請人在2005年認罪時是有律師代表的，所以他理應知道其上訴權利。申請人解釋他延誤原因是之前沒有找出支持他申請的案例。本庭不認為這是合理解釋。

As of the grounds of appeal, Deputy Judge Poon referred to the case R v Darwin Ibrahim, CACC 112/2003 in which 24 years was the starting point. In that case, the Defendant was carrying 1.86 kilogrammes of “Ice” from Shenzhen to overseas via Hong Kong. It was a case of international trafficking.
至於上訴理據，潘法官參考香港特別行政區訴Darwin Ibrahim，CACC 112/2003一案的24年量刑基準。在該案，被告人把1.86公斤的「冰」從深圳經香港運往外地。案件涉及國際販毒因素。

The applicant cited two cases, namely, R v Chong Vui Leong, CACC 351/2008 and R v Chok King Foh, CACC 351/2008. In the said two cases, Chong Vui Leong and Chok King Foh were respectively the 1st and 2nd Defendant of the case. The two were intercepted by Customs officers at the passenger boarding bridge at the Hong Kong International Airport. 1,197.99 grammes of “Ice” was found upon search on the 1st Defendant and 1,685.51 grammes of “Ice” was found upon search on the 2nd Defendant. The two pleaded guilty to the charge. Deputy High Court Judge D. Pang (as he then was) took 22 years and 24 years respectively as the starting point of the sentences for two defendants. The two defendants lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal was of the view that the starting point of the sentences for the two should respectively be 19 years and 3 months and 21 years.
申請人引用兩宗案例，即香港特別行政區訴蔣偉良(Chong Vui Leong)，CACC 351/2008 及香港特別行政區訴卓慶和(Chok King Foh)，CACC 351/2008。在該兩宗案例，蔣偉良和卓慶和分別是案件的第一及第二被告人。他們兩人在香港國際機場旅客登機橋上被海關關員截停。海關關員從第一被告人身上搜獲1,197.99克的「冰」及在第二被告人身上搜獲1,685.51克的「冰」。他們兩人承認控罪。高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官彭偉昌(當時官階)分別以22年和24年監禁作為兩名被告人的量刑基準。兩名被告人提出上訴。上訴法庭認為兩名被告人的量刑基準應該分別為19年3個月及21年。

The applicant here pointed out that the quantity of 1,444.12 grammes of “Ice” he trafficked was less than the 1,685.31 (grammes of) “Ice” trafficked by Chok King Foh, but both he and Chok King Foh had the same starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment. He considered that to be unfair to him and thus asked for reduction of sentence.
在本案申請人指出他販運的1,444.12克「冰」的數量是少過卓慶和所販運的1,685.51「冰」，但他與卓慶和同樣是以21年監禁為量刑基準，他認為這對他不公道，故此要求減刑。

More than 18 years for trafficking in “Ice” of over 600 grammes was the guideline laid by the Court of Appeal in AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125.
在AG v. Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125一案，上訴法庭就販運「冰」頒發量刑指引：超過 600 克的「冰」，刑期是 18 年以上。

It has been said in many cases by the Court of Appeal that the court must take into account the facts of the case when considering sentence, and that defendants in other cases getting a sentence lighter than the applicant’s does not show that the sentence on the applicant was unsafe.
上訴法庭曾在多宗案例中說明，法庭必須根據案情來量刑，就算其他被告人在同類案件中獲得比申請人較輕的刑期，這也不表示申請人的刑期是不穩妥的。

We acknowledge that the length of sentence for trafficking in a dangerous drug is based upon the quantity of dangerous drugs being trafficked. Generally speaking, personal background of the defendant of this kind of cases does not serve as reason for reduction of sentence. The court thus is to see to it that the sentence is consistent with the relevant sentencing guidelines. However, on the other hand, sentencing is not a mechanical operation and the judge has, within the sentencing guideline, discretion in setting an appropriate length.
本庭接納販運毒品的刑期是根據毒品的份量而作出。一般來說這類案件的被告人的個人背景是不會成為減刑理由的,故此法庭是有需要將有關的刑罰保持一致，但同時，量刑並非是一種機械式的運作，在販運毒品量刑指引的框架下，法官是有酌情權來作出適當的量刑。

In HKSAR v an unknown person alias Stojanovic Milka and Skopljak Sara, CACC 110/2010, the defendant was charged with trafficking in 1,484.01 grammes of “Ice”. In that case, the defendant came to Hong Kong from Malaysia by plane. The trial judge took 22 years as the starting point and increased the sentence to 24 years because of the aggravating factor that it was a case of international trafficking. The Court of Appeal was of the view that the appropriate term before considering the aggravating factor should be 20 years, and that two years was to be added for the international trafficking factor, making a 22 years starting point.
在HKSAR v. an unknown person alias Stojanovic Milka and Skopljak Sara, CACC 110/2010 一案，被告人被控販運1,484.01 克的「冰」。在該案，被告人從馬來西亞乘飛機到香港。原審法官採用 22 年的量刑基準，另外，由於案件涉及國際販運毒品的因素，故此將量刑基準調高至 24 年。上訴法庭認為在未考慮加刑因素前，適當的刑期應該是 20 年的監禁。由於案件涉及國際販毒因素，因此，需要加刑兩年，故此量刑基準為 22 年。

We are of the view that the starting point of 21 years taken by Deputy Judge Poon did not substantially deviate from the abovementioned sentencing guidelines. The applicant failed to show that there are sufficient grounds of appeal.
本庭認為潘法官採用 21 年的量刑基準並沒有嚴重偏離上述的量刑原則。申請人未能顯示他具有充分的上訴理據。

Conclusion
總結

For the above reasons, the application is refused.
基於上述理由，本庭拒絕他的申請。

The Applicant, appearing in person, present
答辯人：由律政司檢控官傅悅耳代表。

Fu Yuet Yee, Betty, Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent
申請人：無律師代表, 親自出席。