HKSAR v. TSANG KA WING

CACC 97/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 97 OF 2016

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 68 OF 2016)

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Macrae JA (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 8 April 2016, following her pleas of guilty in the High Court, the applicant was convicted before Deputy Judge Wilson Chan (“the judge”) of one count of trafficking in 52 grammes of a solid containing 44.7 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 (“Count 1”); one count of trafficking in 500 grammes of a solid and a powder containing 404 grammes of ketamine, contrary to the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (“Count 2”); and one count of conspiracy to traffic in ketamine, contrary to sections 4(1)(a), 4(3) and 39 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 (“Count 3”). On the same day, she was sentenced to an overall term of 9½ years’ imprisonment.

2.  The applicant sought leave to appeal against her sentence.  On 26 October 2017, we granted the application and allowed her appeal, reducing her sentence from 9½ years’ imprisonment to 8 years’ imprisonment.  We said we would give the reasons for our decision in due course.  These are our reasons.

The facts

3.  At about 1504 hours on 11 July 2015, outside a flat at Mei Yick House in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, the applicant was intercepted by police officers and searched.  Three keys and four packets, containing 52 grammes of a solid containing 44.70 grammes of ketamine, were discovered on her person. The applicant was duly arrested and under caution said that the ketamine did not belong to her but that she was only helping others to sell it, for which she would receive HK$100 “each time” (Count 1).

4.  Thereafter, the keys found on the applicant were used to open the door of the said flat and a search of the premises was conducted.  During the search, the officers found, inter alia, (i) two bags, containing a total of 500 grammes of a solid and a powder containing 404 grammes of ketamine; (ii) an electronic scale; and (iii) three piles of re‑sealable plastic bags (Count 2).  The retail value of the total quantity of ketamine found on her person and in the flat was HK$80,592.

5.  The applicant was subsequently interviewed by police officers by way of video-recorded interview.  In her interview, she stated, inter alia, that:

(a) She had been delivering ketamine for someone, whose nickname she gave (but whom we shall refer to as “X”), for a month.  X would contact her mobile telephone through Whatsapp and give the prospective buyer’s telephone number, the quantity to be sold and the price; and

(b) The larger bags of ketamine found at her home (Count 2) were collected by her from a park in Mongkok according to X’s instruction.  A man would then attend her home to divide the ketamine into smaller packets of “about 14 grammes”.  The four packets of ketamine found on her (Count 1) were derived from the larger bags.  She would receive HK$100 as reward for delivering every 14 grammes of ketamine and she had already earned about HK$10,000 by delivering drugs for X (Count 3).

6.  By pleading guilty to Count 3, and admitting the Amended Summary of Facts, the applicant accepted that she had conspired with X and other persons unknown to traffic in ketamine during the period 11 June 2015 and 11 July 2015 (inclusive).

The applicant’s background and mitigation

7.  The applicant was 31 years of age at the time of her sentence.  She had been born in Hong Kong and received education to Form 5 level.  She had previously worked as a sales girl, a waitress and a cashier.  However, she was unemployed at the time of her arrest.  The court was told that the applicant had been addicted to dangerous drugs since 2008.  She was single, but had a 2-year-old son, who was living with her half‑sister.

8.  Counsel for the applicant at the sentencing hearing initially sought an adjournment of 4 to 6 months in order to see whether the assistance offered by the applicant by way of a non-prejudicial statement dated 15 October 2015 would yield anything which might be to her advantage.  However, the judge refused the application, since he considered that the applicant could in due course appeal to the Court of Appeal, if her assistance ultimately bore fruit.

9.  In mitigation, it was submitted that the applicant had committed the present offences because of her financial difficulties.  However, the applicant was remorseful and had cooperated with the authorities from the time of her arrest.  Not only had the applicant pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, but she had disclosed the circumstances of her involvement in the conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs, the subject matter of Count 3, which conspiracy would not have come to light but for her admissions in the video-recorded interview.

10.  Regarding the sentences on Counts 1 and 2, counsel acknowledged that if one were to add the quantities of ketamine involved in both counts together, the starting point, in accordance with the guidelines set out in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng[1], would be about 10½ years’ imprisonment.  In respect of Count 3, although the applicant had accepted in the Amended Summary of Facts that she had earned HK$10,000 for delivering drugs on behalf of X, counsel submitted that HK$2,000 of that amount had been paid in respect of her storage of the drugs; hence, the amount earned from actually trafficking drugs to others was only HK$8,000.  The applicant’s counsel accepted, when it was put to her by the judge, that arithmetically the applicant would have trafficked in about 1,100 grammes of ketamine in the period specified in Count 3 (namely, HK$8,000 ÷ HK$100 x 14 grammes per packet = 1,100 grammes of ketamine[2]). When prosecuting counsel was asked directly by the judge whether she accepted such mitigation, she indicated that she “would not dispute” it[3].

Reasons for sentence

11.  The judge pointed out that in serious cases of drug trafficking calling for deterrent sentences, the Court of Appeal had repeatedly made clear that a defendant’s personal or family circumstances afforded little mitigation.  In respect of Counts 1 and 2, by adding the two quantities of the narcotic element of the ketamine together, the judge adopted an overall starting point of 10 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.  Discounting that starting point by a full one‑third for her pleas of guilty, the overall sentence in respect of Counts 1 and 2 would have been 6 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.  In order to achieve an appropriate totality as between the two counts, the judge adopted a starting point of 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment in respect of Count 1, which he discounted by one‑third to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment; and 10 years’ imprisonment in respect of Count 2, which he discounted by one‑third to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  He then ordered 3 years and 6 months of the sentence on Count 1 to run concurrently with the sentence on Count 2, the remaining 3 months to run consecutively; thus arriving at a total sentence in respect of both counts of 6 years and 11 months’ imprisonment.

12.  As we have seen, the judge quantified the amount of dangerous drugs trafficked in the conspiracy (Count 3), following clarification with defence counsel during mitigation, at 1,100 grammes of ketamine.  He considered an appropriate starting point for such a quantity to be 14 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  In identifying the starting point, the judge bore in mind that Count 3 and its scope and duration only came to light as a result of the applicant’s admissions to the police.  Discounting that starting point by one‑third, he sentenced her to 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

13.  Since it was not entirely clear from the Amended Summary of Facts whether the ketamine in respect of which the applicant had received payment for delivering included the drugs seized on 11 July 2015, he gave her the benefit of the doubt and ordered that the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 should run wholly concurrently with the sentence on Count 3. Accordingly, the applicant was sentenced to an overall term of 9½ years’ imprisonment in respect of all three counts.

Grounds of appeal against sentence

14.  Mr Eric Cheung, solicitor advocate, who appears for the applicant at this appeal, has put forward two grounds of appeal, namely:

(a) The starting point of 14 years and 3 months’ imprisonment in respect of Count 3 was wrong in principle and/or manifestly excessive; and

(b) A further sentencing discount should have been given to the applicant for her useful assistance provided to the police by way of three non-prejudicial statements, which had led to the arrest of the supplier of the dangerous drugs in question (allegedly the co-conspirator in Count 3).

15.  In relation to Ground 1, Mr Cheung submitted that in determining the appropriate starting point for the offence of conspiracy to traffic in an unspecified quantity of dangerous drugs, the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chan Kam Loi[4] had laid down certain principles relevant to the determination of such issue, namely:

(1) The court should analyse the evidence “to see whether it allows the court to reach a conclusion which fairly reflects the quantity of drugs that were trafficked or were agreed to be trafficked”[5];

(2) “The evidence may not always allow of precise quantification but it may be possible to reach a view of the very least that was trafficked by recourse to inferences drawn from the evidence or assumptions based on the evidence”[6];

(3) Nevertheless, “sight should not be lost of the ultimate goal which is to make an accurate assessment of the gravity of the offence so as to enable the court to impose a just sentence”[7];

(4) Apart from the inferred quantity of drugs involved, other relevant factors should also be taken into account in assessing the gravity of the offence and the just level of punishment[8].

16.  Mr Cheung submitted that even if the judge’s approach was correct, he did not base it upon the narcotic quantity but on the weight of each packet.  It was trite law that the sentencing of a drug trafficker should be based on the actual narcotic content of the dangerous drug concerned, not on the weight of the mixture of which it formed a part.  Hence, the assumption of the quantity of ketamine trafficked was erroneous, leading to a calculation of the starting point which was manifestly excessive.

17.  Mr Cheung argued that the judge had failed to make three important assumptions, all of which were favourable to the applicant, concerning: (i) the actual weight of the mixture in each packet; (ii) the purity of the dangerous drug in each packet; and (iii) the actual payment received by the applicant for delivering the dangerous drugs.

18.  In respect of (i), Mr Cheung submitted that there was no evidence as to the actual weight of the packets of ketamine previously delivered.  All the prosecution could point to was the applicant’s admission that each packet weighed “about 14 grammes”.  However, the evidence established that the actual weight of each of the four packets of ketamine seized from her possession in Count 1 was only 13 grammes.  He argued that a reasonable margin of error in favour of the applicant would suggest that the weight of the mixture in each packet distributed was 12 grammes.

19.  As for (ii), it was submitted that the certification by the government chemist in respect of the mixture seized in Counts 1 and 2 showed that the purity of the narcotic varied.  Whilst the purity level of the ketamine in the packets in Count 1 was about 86%, the purity level of the two larger bags of ketamine in Count 2 was about 80%. Giving the benefit of doubt to the applicant, the lower purity level of 80% should be adopted as a starting reference, subject to a further reasonable margin of error in favour of the applicant for the inevitable variation in the purity level between different consignments of the drug.  Mr Cheung suggested that the Court could adopt a purity level which was 20% lower than 80% and assess the purity level at 60%.

20.  He derived support for his argument from the trial judge’s assessment in Chan Kam Loi, where, although the purity level of the heroin seized was 69%, he was prepared to assume in the defendant’s favour a purity level of 50% for the purpose of assessing the gravity of the conspiracy count.  Of the judge’s assumption, the Court of Appeal had said, at paragraph 104:

“104. An example where an assumption was adopted by the judge is the purity of the mixture. But, although an assumption, it is based upon the purity of the drugs seized in the third count and makes allowance for the inevitable variation there would be between different consignments of drugs. In order to avoid using a purity percentage that would be unfair to the applicant the judge adopted a figure of 50%, almost 20% less than the purity of the drugs the subject of the third count. Fifty percent is not a wholly arbitrary figure and the reality is that it is undoubtedly a figure favourable to the applicant. It is certainly not a figure which is divorced from the reality of the situation nor is it such as could cause a justifiable sense of grievance in the applicant.”

21.  In respect of (iii), Mr Cheung argued that the figure of HK$10,000 stated by the applicant during the video-recorded interview as the amount she had earned in one month was only an estimate based on the applicant’s best recollection at that time, without recourse to any diary or written record.  It would, he argued, not be unreasonable to give a 10% discount to the figure so that the net amount earned in a month for delivering the ketamine should be assessed at HK$7,000 (HK$9,000 less HK$2,000 in respect of the storage payment).

22.  It was submitted that if all of these three assumptions favourable to the applicant had been made, the total inferred quantity of ketamine trafficked pursuant to the conspiracy averred in Count 3 should have been 70 packets of 12 grammes of mixture, containing 7.2 grammes of ketamine.  Such a computation would have meant that the applicant had conspired to traffic in roughly 500 grammes of ketamine narcotic rather than 1,100 grammes.  That would have had a significant impact on the resulting sentence by removing the quantity into a very different bracket for sentencing purposes.

23.  Regarding Ground 2, Mr Cheung contended that a further sentencing discount should have been given to the applicant for her useful assistance which led to the identification and arrest of X, who was the instigator of the conspiracy.  The applicant did not ultimately testify against X because, it is accepted, he had absconded to the Mainland whilst on bail, since when he has been detained in respect of another drugs case.  It was submitted that a discount of between 40% to 45% would be appropriate for an applicant who had provided useful evidence but not been required to give evidence through no fault of her own.

24.  Mr Cheung relied upon the factors enumerated in the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal in Z v HKSAR[9], when assessing the nature and extent of any assistance, at paragraph 13(a):

“In relation to this, matters which are relevant include: the degree to which the defendant gave full and frank disclosure; the truth and reliability of the information; the range and seriousness of the criminal activities disclosed; the significance and usefulness of the information and the extent to which it could potentially assist or had actually assisted the authorities; whether the authorities were already in possession of the information and whether the defendant believed this to be the case; the extent of the defendant’s assistance, in particular, whether he was prepared to give evidence.”

25.  Mr Cheung argued that since (i) X was not the target of any police investigation before the applicant provided useful information about him; (ii) the police relied essentially on the applicant’s assistance in identifying and arresting X; and (iii) X was subsequently arrested by the Mainland authorities for another offence in connection with dangerous drugs, having absconded from Hong Kong, the applicant had at the very least “potentially assisted” the authorities and should receive a sentencing discount in the range of 45% to 49%[10].

Respondent’s submissions

26.  Ms Hermina Ng, on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the starting points adopted by the judge in relation to each count were well within the judge’s discretion under the relevant guidelines.  In respect of the quantity trafficked in Count 3, the judge had proceeded on an assumed quantity, to which defence counsel (not Mr Cheung) had agreed when specifically questioned by the judge.  Ms Ng argues that it must have been appreciated by all parties that the quantity being discussed related to the narcotic element of the ketamine concerned.

27.  Even if one accepted that the purity of the packets and bags in which the applicant had trafficked was a mean of 83.38%[11], the quantity of narcotic would then become 917 grammes, which would reduce the starting point to 13 years and 7 months’ imprisonment under the guidelines in Hii Siew Cheng.

28.  The respondent argued that if one was to further take into account the particular circumstances of the present case, including (i) the length of the conspiracy and the involvement of three conspirators; (ii) the fact that numerous packets were sold during that period; and (iii) the conspiracy would have continued but for the intervention of the police, then the starting point of 14 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, albeit some 8 months more than the quantity of ketamine would have warranted on a strictly arithmetical approach, could not be said to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

29.  Ms Ng further submitted that it was the applicant’s own version in her video-recorded interview that each packet of ketamine weighed “about 14 grammes”, and that she had earned HK$10,000 from delivering drugs for X.  There was no scope for any further assumption to be made in favour of the applicant.  The suggestion that this Court should adopt 12 grammes as the average weight of the mixture per packet during the period of the conspiracy, as well as give a further 10% discount for her earnings, was speculative and arbitrary.

30.  In relation to Ground 2, the respondent contended that the information provided by the applicant had not provided any real assistance to the authorities and did not lead to any tangible result. Accordingly, no further discount was warranted.  Ms Ng explained that the information provided by the applicant was the alleged mobile telephone number and address of X.  Whilst the address was proven to be non-existent[12], the mobile telephone number did lead to the arrest of a male, who was yet to be confirmed as the man involved in the conspiracy.  That male had unfortunately absconded before any identification parade could take place.  The truthfulness of the applicant’s non-prejudicial statements and the prospect of conviction were, therefore, yet to be ascertained.

31.  Furthermore, the fact that the applicant had sought to retract in her third and last non-prejudicial statement the existence of a third person involved in the repackaging exercise cast doubt on her credibility.  The assistance provided by the applicant was very limited and the applicant had not been required to testify against anyone.  Indeed, no proceedings had even been commenced.

32.  Ms Ng accepted that a usual discount of 40% could be given to a defendant who had provided assistance to the authorities without being required to testify in court; however, for such a discount to be awarded, the statements provided by a defendant should at least form a reliable basis for a prosecution against those mentioned in the statements.  The so‑called “assistance” given by the applicant had not in fact resulted in a prosecution of anyone.  The respondent submitted that other than the guilty plea, there was no other mitigating factor available to the applicant.  The judge had already given the applicant the benefit of the doubt by ordering the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 to run wholly concurrently with the sentence on Count 3.  Accordingly, the overall sentence imposed upon the applicant could not be said to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Discussion

(Ground 1)

33.  As the Court in Chan Kam Loi explained, where a conspiracy to traffic in an unspecified quantity of dangerous drugs is concerned, the sentencing court must do its best to arrive at a starting point based on inferences and assumptions properly derived from the particular facts in the case.  Those facts, and the inferences and assumptions from which they derive, will vary from case to case.  We would add that, unless the facts which give rise to the inferences and assumptions are clear‑cut, they will inevitably lean in favour of the defence.

34.  We accept some, but not all, of the points made on the applicant’s behalf by Mr Cheung.  If we were to accept each of his submissions, we would find ourselves adopting a starting point in respect of about 500 grammes of ketamine for all three counts, notwithstanding that the quantity of ketamine narcotic for Counts 1 and 2 taken together already amounts to 448.7 grammes.  That would leave just over 50 grammes of ketamine to be trafficked under a conspiracy count which lasted a month.  With respect, we do not think that is a realistic submission or conclusion on the facts.

35.  Mr Cheung arrived at such a conclusion in part by advocating a further 20% reduction in the purity of the narcotic being trafficked during the period of the conspiracy.  This is said to be appropriate in the light of the Court’s acceptance of such an approach by the trial judge in Chan Kam Loi.  However, as was made clear in Chan Kam Loi, the evidence and the inferences which are drawn from the evidence will vary from case to case[13]. We do not accept that the Court was there approving of some general practice of reduction, or laying down some immutable percentage of narcotic purity, to be applied in every conspiracy case.  While the Court accepted that “Fifty percent is not a wholly arbitrary figure”, it also held that “the reality is that it is undoubtedly a figure favourable to the applicant”[14].

36.  In this case, we have two known purities of the dangerous drugs found on the applicant’s person and inside the flat, coupled with the admissions in paragraph 6 of the Amended Summary of Facts that:

“(iv) A man (aged around 30) would then attend her home to divide the ketamine into smaller packets. Each packet was about 14 grammes;

(v) The four packets of ketamine found on her person were divided from the larger packets.”

Since we know that the packets found on the applicant’s person, which were for trafficking, were derived from the larger packets at her home, we consider that we should proceed on the basis that the purity of the ketamine in which she was conspiring to traffic would be the lesser of the two purities identified by the government chemist, namely about 80%.

37.  We also do not accept that we should go below the weight of the packets actually found in her possession, which, according to the actual evidence, weighed 13 grammes per packet, as opposed to the “about 14 grammes” per packet she had admitted.  Nor do we accept Mr Cheung’s submission that we should arbitrarily assume that the applicant only derived HK$7,000 from trafficking in the dangerous drugs under the conspiracy charge. Indeed, we regard the judge as having already made a generous reduction of HK$2,000 in respect of the money the applicant received as storage charges.  He had no doubt felt obliged to proceed on that basis, when prosecuting counsel (not Ms Ng) accepted the defence proposition that HK$2,000 was used for storage charges, when directly asked by the judge to state her position.

38.  What, however, we do accept is that the judge’s calculation must have been based on the quantity of ketamine mixture rather than the purity of the narcotic.  As we have seen, the applicant admitted under caution that “each packet was about 14 grammes” and that they “were divided from the larger packets” found in the applicant’s flat.  We think it very unlikely indeed that the applicant would have been talking about the narcotic content of the packets when answering questions about their weight in her video-recorded interview: she would much more likely have been describing the weight of the packet itself.  It is a fair and just assumption to make, therefore, that each packet contained a mixture whose ketamine purity was about 80%.

39.  Furthermore, we agree with the submission that each packet found on the applicant’s person in fact weighed about 13 grammes, not 14 grammes.  That was clear from the admitted fact that the four packets of mixture found on her person, which had already been divided from the larger bags in the flat, collectively weighed 52 grammes.  It is certainly within the experience of this Court that the weight of a packet is often less than that claimed by the seller.  Obviously, the purchaser is often not in a position to check whether he is receiving exactly what he is bargaining for in this nefarious trade, or to complain if he is short-changed.

40.  Accordingly, we shall accept the judge’s approach in respect of the applicant earning HK$8,000 in the conspiracy to traffic dangerous drugs count; and his decision to make all the sentences concurrent.  However, for the reasons stated above, we shall assume that each packet weighed 13 grammes of mixture with a purity of 80% ketamine.  Applying the judge’s formula, the calculation of the quantity of ketamine narcotic trafficked in the conspiracy count for sentencing purposes would become 832 grammes (HK$8,000 ÷ 100 packets x 10.4 grammes [80% of 13 grammes]) rather than 1,100 grammes.

41.  We are further prepared to make a slight adjustment in favour of the applicant given the possible margin of variation or uncertainty in the applicant’s account and for the fact that, but for the applicant’s admissions, the prosecution would not have known about the details of the conspiracy.  Accordingly, we shall reduce the quantity arrived at in Count 3 from 832 grammes to 800 grammes of ketamine narcotic.

42.  Using the figure of 800 grammes of ketamine narcotic in which the applicant conspired to traffic in Count 3, we accordingly assess the starting point after trial at 13 years’ imprisonment under the relevant guidelines in Hii Siew Cheng.

(Ground 2)

43.  The next question is whether the starting point should be reduced beyond the one‑third discount for her plea in recognition of any assistance the applicant has given to the police.

44.  It is true that the applicant has given a video-recorded interview and three non-prejudicial statements naming someone as her co‑conspirator in Count 3, and providing sufficient information about him so as to enable the police to discover that he was the same person who had been connected with another criminal case.  This information led the police to arrest this person and place him on an identification parade to see if the applicant could identify him as the named co‑conspirator in Count 3.  Unfortunately, he was placed on police bail and never attended the identification parade.

45.  So, whilst the applicant’s information did lead to an arrest, it is not established whether the man arrested was in fact X, and there has never been any trial as a result; although that cannot be said to be the fault of the applicant.  Nevertheless, it would appear from his conduct in absconding that the applicant’s information may well have been accurate.  It is not, however, a case where the applicant has assisted in a controlled delivery by actively participating in a police operation which has ultimately come to nothing, nor is it a case where the applicant has not been required to give evidence because the defendant has pleaded guilty.  No prosecution of the alleged co-conspirator X has ever been instituted.

46.  Mr Cheung places considerable reliance on HKSAR v Paes Martinho Alessander[15], a decision of a judge at first instance, in which a 40% discount had been granted to a defendant who, due to circumstances beyond his control, was unable to participate in a controlled delivery when he would otherwise have been prepared to do so, because of the non-availability of a Portuguese interpreter.  However, this decision has been recently considered by the Court in HKSAR v Okafor Charles Chukwuemeka[16], where the Court, at paragraph 28, said of the sentence in Paes Martinho Alessander that the judge was not correct to give the defendant a 40% discount for the reasons that he gave.  The Court went on to say:

“Reliance ought not to be placed on this sentencing decision again, either in this Court or in the lower courts.”

47.  As we have said, the most that can be said of the applicant’s assistance to the authorities in this case is that she did give information to the police which led to the arrest of a particular person, who may or may not turn out to be connected with the conspiracy in Count 3, but whose conduct in absconding suggests that her information may well be true. However, nothing has since come of that information, through no fault of the applicant, save that the police now know of this person’s connection with this case and, perhaps, with the trafficking of dangerous drugs in Hong Kong.  If something were to come of her assistance in due course, should this person be returned to Hong Kong by the Mainland authorities, then it will be a matter for the Executive to determine whether she merits any further reduction of sentence.

48.  We would be prepared to acknowledge the applicant’s assistance, such as it is, with a discount slightly above one‑third. However, the discount cannot be 40%, which applies to those defendants who have given valuable or tangible assistance to the police but have not been required to give evidence, typically because the defendant against whom they were to testify pleaded guilty.  Accordingly, we would assess the applicant’s overall discount, in the particular circumstances of this case, where the police knew nothing of any conspiracy until the applicant admitted her own involvement in a video-recorded interview, at about 38.5%.

49.  Accordingly, we are prepared to discount the applicant’s starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment on Count 3 as earlier indicated, resulting in a sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment.  That sentence will run concurrently with the sentences on Counts 1 and 2, which will remain undisturbed.

Conclusion

50.  The result is that we grant the applicant leave to appeal against sentence, allow her appeal and reduce her overall sentence from 9½ years’ imprisonment to 8 years’ imprisonment.