Case Document

100%

CACC 27/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2014

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 326 OF 2013)

____________

BETWEEN

	HKSAR	Respondent
	and
	TSOI SIN YEE (蔡倩儀)	Applicant

____________

Before : Hon Lunn VP, Poon and D. Pang JJs in Court

Date of Hearing : 18 November 2014

Date of Decision : 18 November 2014

____________

D E C I S I O N

____________

Hon Lunn VP (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.On 15 July 2014 this Court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 13 years and 9 months’ imprisonment imposed on her by E. Toh J on 22 January 2014, following her plea of guilty to a single count of unlawfully trafficking in 1.73 kg of methamphetamine hydrochloride on 1 February 2013, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.By a notice of motion dated 28 July 2014 the applicant invites this Court to certify that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in that judgment. In an affirmation affirmed on the same day in support of the application, the applicant asserts the following grounds :

“ 1. The SMS message on the mobile phone proved that I let the male co-defendant know about (it) well in advance.

2. In the second witness statement (I) new something that the other people didn’t.

3. Mitigation.

4. Being aggrieved at the sentence.

5. Challenge (to) the credibility of D2’s evidence, etc.

6. False allegation.”

3.As is apparent from our judgment, the issue arising in the application for leave to appeal against sentence was whether or not the judge had ordered the applicant an appropriate discount of sentence having regard to the assistance that she had given to the authorities, without having been required to give evidence.

4.In her oral submissions to the Court the applicant complained that she had told her counsel that the police had been most unfair to her but he did not say anything about it at the hearing before this Court. He merely informed her that her application was against sentence only.

5.None of the grounds advanced by the applicant in this application are directly relevant to the issue. We are satisfied that no point of law of great and general importance is involved in our judgment. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.