HKSAR v. Law Siu Ling

CACC000030/2000

CACC 30/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 1133 OF 1999)

Coram: Hon Mayo VP, Leong and Wong JJA in Court

Date of Hearing : 13 April 2000

Date of Judgment: 13 April 2000

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Wong JA:

1. The applicant pleaded guilty before Judge Day in the District Court to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment. She now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the ground that it is too severe.

2. The facts are very simple. The applicant was intercepted by police officers laying ambush at the staircase of block 38, Sau Mau Ping Estate in the early morning of 26 October 1999. She was carrying a pink plastic bag in her left hand and when the bag was searched it was found to contain a number of small plastic packets of dangerous drugs. The total narcotic content amounted to 25.75 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. In addition there were 280 tablets containing a total weight of 4.99 grammes of midazolam maleate.

3. Under caution, the applicant admitted keeping the dangerous drugs for another person and asked for a chance. During two interviews in the afternoon which was video recorded, she further told the officers that a man called 'Ah Ming' had asked her to keep the white powder and the midazolam maleate for him. She was promised $500. She said that earlier on that morning 'Ah Ming' took her to a staircase near a public lavatory in Block 39, Sau Mau Ping Estate where she was told to take out the bag of drugs from a litter bin on the staircase. When she was taking the drugs to her home, she was intercepted by the police.

4. Before us, she said that this was the first offence she had committed. For over 20 years she had kept out of trouble. She also added that the sentence imposed on her would have serious impact on her family. She had two young children and she was worried that they might turn astray if she remained in prison for too long.

5. It is not quite true that this was the first offence that she had committed. She has five previous convictions, three of which were for possession of dangerous drugs. In passing sentence, the judge took full account of the applicant's family circumstances and she had committed this offence because she was in dire need of money to pay for school items for her children. She talked about serious impact on her family and her young children but she had never thought of children of other people who were addicted to dangerous drugs. Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence as it does enormously damage to society. Obviously, this had never been in her mind. She had only thought of her family and her children but not families and children of other people. She is not only utterly selfish but has not shown the slightest degree of remorse .

6. In our view, the sentence is perfectly proper and within the tariff laid down by this Court. It is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. There is no merit whatsoever in the application and we refuse leave. As the application is completely without substance, we order that one month of the time the applicant has spent in custody will not be counted towards her sentence.

Representation:

Miss Anna LAI, S.G.C. for DPP

Applicant in person