HKSAR v. Leung Suk Ling
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 1042/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 December 1999.
1. This Appellant appeals against the sentence of 16 months imposed on her in the magistracy for an offence of Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs. The Appellant was seen by police officers to be selling drugs in the street. The drugs were 3 straw packets with a narcotic content of 0.73g Heroin hydrochloride. She has a previous criminal record going back to 1986 for comparatively minor offences. Her only drug offences were two counts of Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which she was sent to DATC in
|
HCMA001042/1999 HCMA No. 1042/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1042 OF 1999 (ON APPEAL FROM TMC 2672/99) ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court Date of Hearing: 17 December 1999 Date of Judgment: 17 December 1999 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1. This Appellant appeals against the sentence of 16 months imposed on her in the magistracy for an offence of Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs. The Appellant was seen by police officers to be selling drugs in the street. The drugs were 3 straw packets with a narcotic content of 0.73g Heroin hydrochloride. She has a previous criminal record going back to 1986 for comparatively minor offences. Her only drug offences were two counts of Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which she was sent to DATC in 1993. 2. The Appellant says that her sentence is too severe and asks the court to reduce it particularly on the ground that she wishes to go out and care for her 2 1/2 year old daughter. 3. The Magistrate in his Reasons for Sentence quite rightly noted that this case came within the lowest band of LAU Tak-ming which gives a sentencing range of 2 to 5 years' imprisonment. He took a starting point of 2 years and reduced it to 16 months thereby giving the usual discount for plea. The Magistrate was aware of and took into account this Appellant's family circumstances. In fact on the day he dealt with the Appellant he had made an order in the Juvenile Court earlier, making the child subject to a Care and Protection Order and vesting guardianship in the Director of Social Welfare. The Magistrate clearly had sympathy with the Appellant, but quite rightly said that her family circumstances did not amount to mitigation of the offence. 4. I can see no ground that would justify my interfering with the Magistrate's sentence and this appeal is dismissed.
Representation: Mr G Di Fazio, SGC, for DPP LEUNG Suk Ling, Appellant in person |