Lai Siu Hung v. The Queen

CACC000432/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 432 OF 1972

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 19th July, 1972.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The Appellant was charged before the magistrate on two charges of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. She pleaded guilty to the charges and was thereupon sentenced to two years' imprisonment and six months' imprisonment respectively, those sentences to run consecutively. She now appeals against her sentences.

2. The burden of the submission on her behalf is that the learned magistrate has not taken sufficient account of the fact that the Appellant pleaded guilty and I have been referred to a number of cases, none of which really I think is of any great assistance. There is no doubt that a plea of guilty is a matter which can be taken into consideration for one or, possibly, for two reasons. The first is that by a plea of guilty the public is saved the expense and the trouble of a trial. The second is that it may or may not show remorse. The second of these elements, I think, can often be exaggerated where somebody is caught in flagrante delicto. It is, as the learned magistrate said, in favour of the accused that he has pleaded guilty. very often an accused is left with little choice, the evidence against him being so manifestly conclusive. In the present case the Appellant was found in a motor-car carrying one load of drugs consisting of 4,050 grammes of raw opium. As to that charge she had really no possible defence. As to the second, she was apparently then taken (whether as a result of information given by her or not does not appear from the papers) to an address in Kowloon, where a further quantity of drugs was found. As to that she did admit that she was responsible for those drugs, and it may well be said that her plea does indicate a measure of remorse and that she need not have pleaded guilty on the basis that it must have been known. As was said in Reg. v. de Haan ⁽¹⁾, the real question that I must ask myself is What sentence would have been appropriate had this Appellant not pleaded guilty but been found guilty upon a trial ? Then I must compare the answer with the sentence which was in fact imposed to ascertain whether sufficient consideration has been given in fact to the plea of guilty.

3. It is not easy to assess sentences in any case. For my part, I incline to think that there is some slight justification for the complaint that is made in the present case and I shall allow the appeal to this extent only, that the sentences instead of running consecutively will run concurrently, so that there will be a sentence over all of two years' imprisonment.

19th July, 1972.

Representation:

(1) 1967 3 All E.R. 618