HKSAR v. CHUNG PUI KWAN

CACC 282/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 81 OF 1999)

____________________________________

_______________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1. The applicant pleaded guilty in May 1999 to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The first count alleged that on 6 November 1998 she trafficked in a mixture containing 23.85 grammes of heroin hydrochloride; the second, that on 6 November 1998 she trafficked in a mixture containing 569 grammes of heroin. Her plea was tendered before the magistrate who committed her to the High Court for sentence. She was sentenced to a total of 12 years' imprisonment, and she now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2. The applicant was stopped by police on 6 November 1998 coming out of a lift lobby in a housing estate; and in a knapsack she was carrying 195 straw packets containing heroin. This is the subject of the first count. She was taken to her residence on the estate, and there she showed the police a drawer in a wardrobe with 242 straw packets of heroin. The heroin found in her flat is the subject of the second count. The street value of all the drugs thus found was slightly over $806, 000.

3. She was then aged 22 years, and was a person of previous good character. The judge took a starting point for both offences together of 20 years' imprisonment. We pause to say that for the first count a starting point of six years' imprisonment was appropriate, and for the second a starting point of 20 years was appropriate, so that the global starting point taken by the judge cannot be faulted.

4. By reason of her plea of guilty, as well as her good character, and the particularly strong family support which she had, he reduced that to a total of 12 years' imprisonment. He sentenced her on the first count to three and a half years' imprisonment; to 12 years on the second count, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently, making a total of 12 years.

5. We have this morning had the benefit of mitigation which was not presented to the trial judge, and there are special circumstances on the papers which justify a lenient view to be taken, and a reduction in the appropriate sentence to be passed.

6. We grant leave to the applicant to appeal against sentence; and we shall treat the hearing of this application as the hearing of the appeal. We set aside the sentences imposed by the trial judge, and substitute the following: On count 1, we sentence the applicant to a term of two years and four months' imprisonment. On count 2, taking a starting point of 20 years, we sentence the applicant to a term of eight years' imprisonment. We order that both terms are to run concurrently. The total is therefore a term of eight years' imprisonment.