Lorraine Mary Langridge v. The Queen
|
CACC000631/1969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG ----------------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION ----------------- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 631 OF 1969 -----------------
Coram: Rigby, S.P.J. Date of Judgment: 5 September 1969 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant, together with two other persons, was charged with a variety of offences involving smoking and possession of cannabis which is, of course, listed as a dangerous drug. They pleaded guilty to the various charges preferred against them and sentences were imposed upon them. The appellant pleaded guilty to the most serious of the charges preferred, that of trafficking in dangerous drugs. She pleaded guilty to that charge and to two charges of possession of dangerous drugs, both on the 23rd June; one charge involved a fairly substantial quantity of cannabis and the other charge involved possession of a small quantity of what is commonly known as LSD. She was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the charge of trafficking and, according to the record of the learned magistrate, the other two charges of possession of dangerous drugs were "taken into consideration" - whatever that may mean. The learned magistrate also made a recommendation for her deportation. 2. The premises in question at which the dangerous drugs were found had been kept under observation for several months prior to the day when they were entered and searched by a party of police officers on the 23rd June. Whilst searching the premises the police found a typewritten letter on a table in the sitting room. The contents of that letter, to which I will later refer, were such as justifiably to arouse the suspicion of the police officers. The appellant was asked to explain certain passages in the letter and she was then told that she was suspected of having a quantity of dangerous drugs on the premises. She said "I will take you to it", and then led the police to the rear part of the premises where, after having unlocked the door of an outside room, she pulled out a cardboard box and said to the police officers "This is it, this is all the Hash that I have". Inside the box was a quantity - just over 3 lbs. - of what was subsequently proved to be cannabis. The appellant had only recently arrived from India by air on the 6th June, that is to say, 17 days before the police entered these premises. 3. The appellant now appeals against the sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed upon her. The appellant is a female of Australian nationality, aged 31 and unmarried. She is by training and occupation a school teacher, and was in fact teaching in Hong Kong from January 1966 to July 1968. She then left Hong Kong and went to Nepal where, it is said - probably with truth - that cannabis - generally known as marijuana - is very easy to come by and it is apparently no offence to smoke or possess it there. It was thereafter that she returned to Hong Kong in June 1969, and there can be no doubt from the contents of the typewritten letter - and, indeed it is conceded by Mr. Whyte, who appears on her behalf - that she smuggled this cannabis through the customs into Hong Kong when she returned. 4. The typewritten letter, to which I have referred, is of considerable significance. It is said by Mr. Whyte - and it would appear to be confirmed by the contents of the letter - that she was not at all well when in India and there was every reason to believe that she was suffering from gall bladder trouble. Again, it is said by Mr. Whyte - and, again, the contents of the letter would appear to confirm it - that she returned to Hong Kong primarily for the purpose of having a gall bladder operation. It is clear from the contents of the letter that, fortunately, it was found that there was nothing the matter with her gall bladder and that the pains from which she was suffering were due to some entirely different cause. It is said by Mr. Whyte that the primary, or substantial, purpose for her bringing this cannabis into Hong Kong was to pay for the cost of the operation which she then anticipated was necessary, and also to cover the cost of her air fare here. Whether or not that is correct, it is clear from the contents of the letter that she hoped and expected to sell the cannabis here in Hong Kong for U.S.$30 per ounce - and she had in her possession just over 3 lbs. 5. The learned magistrate very rightly took a serious view of the matter, and I have no doubt that a sentence of imprisonment was the appropriate penalty for an offence of this nature. The only question, however, is whether or not, in all the circumstances of this case, a sentence of two years' imprisonment was not unduly severe. 6. Mr. Whyte urged upon me, as indeed had been urged upon the learned magistrate that a sentence of two years' imprisonment in Hong Kong upon a female of Caucasian origin was a particularly severe sentence in that the only prison for females in Hong Kong was not equipped and disposed to provide for persons of Caucasian origin; that there were very few members of the staff - and virtually no prisoners - with whom the appellant was able to converse in her own language, and as a consequence she was placed in a particularly invidious, lonely and unhappy position. He further mentioned the fact that under Prison Regulations she was only able to receive (and presumably only able to send) 4 letters a month. A sentence of two years imprisonment was, therefore, particularly severe upon her. Whilst one may have sympathy for the appellant in the predicament in which she now finds herself, I do not think that the arguments raised are, in themselves - and I stress the two words "in themselves" - any good reasons which would justify the reduction of the sentence imposed upon her. If a person chooses to commit an offence, likely to involve a term of imprisonment, in a country other than his, or her own country, he or she must not be surprised at the consequences that arise from his, or her, unlawful act in that alien country, and is not entitled to expect a more lenient sentence merely by reason of the fact that he, or she, comes from another country or from a different environment. 7. But having said that, I am, nevertheless, firmly of the opinion that the sentence imposed in this case was unduly severe. It has been said that when imposing a sentence one should consider not only the circumstances of the offence, but also the circumstances of the offender. Crown Counsel has himself conceded that this was a very severe sentence. I agree. Without in any way detracting from the seriousness of this type of offence, I am firmly of the opinion that, having regard to the background of the appellant and to the important consideration that she has never been in trouble before, the length of sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal will accordingly be allowed to the extent that the sentence will be varied to one of 15 months' imprisonment. Representation: Penlington, ...(illegible) (Judgment delivered) |