Wong Siu-fan (F) and Another v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 289/1976 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The two appellants are related in that the first appellant is the sister-in-law of the second appellant.
|
CACC000289/1976
Coram: Briggs, C.J. Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 14th May, 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The two appellants are related in that the first appellant is the sister-in-law of the second appellant. 2. The first appellant, who is aged 21, pleaded guilty to two separate offences of being in possession of dangerous drugs and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be served concurrently. The amount of drugs concerned in the first charge was 12.13 kilogrammes of opium and the amount in the second charge was 53.26 kilogrammes of opium. 3. The second appellant, who is aged 30, pleaded guilty to the first charge of being in possession of dangerous drugs only and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. 4. The trial judge, by mistake, passed a sentence on the second appellant as though she had pleaded guilty to the second charge as well as to the first charge. This second sentence which he purported to impose on the second appellant he declared to be a nullity but, at the same time, he said that he thought that the correct sentence for the second appellant on the first charge would be four years' imprisonment and not five. 5. Mr. van Buuren, who appeared for the appellants, addressed the court on other matters with which it is not necessary now to deal. It is enough to say that the sentences passed on the first appellant were proper and her appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of the remarks of the trial judge we allow the appeal of the second appellant to the extent that a four year sentence of imprisonment be substituted for the sentence of five years' imprisonment.
Representation: van Buuren (D.L.A.) for both appellants. Reid for the crown. |