BabelCite

HKSAR v. Nguyen Phuong Dung

Read the full judgment text of HCMA 245/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 May 2006.

1. The appellant was convicted on her own plea of one charge of ‘dealing with goods to which the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance applies’ contrary to section 17(1) as read with section 46(3) of the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance (Cap.109).  She was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.  A suspended sentence of 3 months was also activated.  She appeals against the sentence.

Case No.HCMA 245/2006
Court
High Court CFI
Date24 May 2006
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMA245/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.245 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 424 OF 2006)

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

BETWEEN

　 HKSAR Respondent
　 and 　
　 NGUYEN PHUONG DUNG Appellant

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

Before : Deputy High Court Judge D. Pang in Court

Date of Hearing : 24 May 2006

Date of Judgment : 24 May 2006

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Judgment : 12 June 2006

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

REASONS   FOR   JUDGMENT

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

1.The appellant was convicted on her own plea of one charge of ‘dealing with goods to which the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance applies’ contrary to section 17(1) as read with section 46(3) of the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance (Cap.109).  She was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.  A suspended sentence of 3 months was also activated.  She appeals against the sentence.

2.The admitted facts were that in a raid, customs officers entering the appellant’s flat found a stock of 68,460 dutiable cigarettes.  Under caution, the appellant (D3 in the proceedings below) admitted ownership of the cigarettes and that she had bought them for re-selling.

3.In his Reasons for Sentence, the magistrate had this to say :

“I was told in mitigation that the defendant lives with the husband who is now unemployed.  They have 3 children aged 7, 3 and 3 months.  D1 [the husband] was in custody pending trial on a charge of arson at the matrimonial home.

D3 has 5 previous convictions, 3 similar and was in breach of a 3-month suspended prison sentence.

Taking into account all the circumstances I took a starting point of 9 months in respect of the offence and gave the usual one third discount for the guilty plea and ordered the 3-month suspended sentence to run consecutively.”

4.Before me, the appellant reiterated much of what she said to the magistrate.  She asked for an early release to take care of her children.

5.There is no merit in this appeal against what is an irreproachable sentence.  It is dismissed.  

　 ( D. Pang )
Deputy High Court Judge

Ms Laura Ng, GC of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

The Appellant, in person