HKSAR v. Lee Yuk Chun

Read the full judgment text of CACC 487/2004 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 February 2005.

1. The applicant is aged 49 years with no previous convictions.  The role that she played in this affair was, she said, as an employee, earning $250 a day for two months prior to her arrest.  Manufacturing equipment was found in the premises, for which the reason the sentence was no doubt higher than otherwise it would have been.  Nonetheless a question arises for consideration, namely, whether the three-year starting point was or was not too high.  That is a matter which is worthy of considerat

Cites 1 case

Case No.CACC 487/2004
Court
Court of Appeal
Date03 Feb 2005
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC 487/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 783 OF 2004)

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

BETWEEN

  HKSAR Respondent
  and  
  LEE YUK CHUN李玉珍 Applicant

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

Before : Hon Stock JA in Court

Dates of Hearing : 3 February 2005

Date of Judgment : 3 February 2005

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.The applicant is aged 49 years with no previous convictions.  The role that she played in this affair was, she said, as an employee, earning $250 a day for two months prior to her arrest.  Manufacturing equipment was found in the premises, for which the reason the sentence was no doubt higher than otherwise it would have been.  Nonetheless a question arises for consideration, namely, whether the three-year starting point was or was not too high.  That is a matter which is worthy of consideration by the full Court and I therefore grant the applicant leave to appeal against sentence.

  (Frank Stock)
  Justice of Appeal

Applicant, LEE Yuk-chun, in person

Mr Eddie Sean, SGC of the Department of Justice for the Respondent

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACC 487/2004