THE QUEEN v. SIU SUK CHING

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 552 OF 1986

____________

BETWEEN

_____________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Penlington, J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence on the charges. of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

2. The facts of the case were that on the 1st May 1986 the applicant. was found by police officers in possession of a small package of drugs in circumstances which quite clearly indicated that she was in possession for the purpose of trafficking. That was an amount of some 8.24 grammes. As a result of something said by the applicant at the time of her arrest, the police party went to her home which she shared with her husband, and there a more substantial quantity, some 86 grammes was found. That formed the basis for the second charge.

3. The applicant defended the charges and was convicted after trial. The sentences imposed were 2 years and 3½ years imprisonment, concurrent. What is however complained about is that these sentences were made consecutive to a sentence of 3 years which had already been imposed for a very similar offence which had been committed on the 9th March. Between date 9th March and 7th June the applicant had been on bail.

4. The trial judge said in his reasons for sentence that "looking at the matter as a whole and bearing in mind that she was already serving a sentence of three years imprisonment, I sentenced her to a total of 3½ years". Quite clearly therefore he had in mind the totality of the sentences to be served. The applicant is a married woman, and indeed it would appear very likely that her husband was just as much involved, if not more so, in this offence. She has two children, one aged 4 and one aged 8. It is submitted that she is a drug addict as she was convicted in 1983 of injecting dangerous drugs. The totality is 6½ years and it is submitted by Mr. Westbrook in his clear and lucid submissions that that is considerably more than the guideline set down in R. v. Chan Chi Ming ⁽¹⁾ for quantities of this sort. However, it is clearly set down in Chan Chi Ming  that they are guidelines only. Here is a case of a person who has a previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 1983, and who has committed this offence while on bail having been arrested for yet another offence of trafficking. The Courts are always reluctant to sentence a married woman with a family to substantial periods of imprisonment but the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs is one where personal circumstances can play little part in the sentencing policy. What is abundantly clear is that the applicant was and is not, in any way, regretful for these offences. Mr. Westbrook says that because she is an addict remorse can't be expected - she is trafficking in order to satisfy her own habit. That may be so but we must take the facts as found. We are satisfied that the judge did bear in mind the sentence which was being already served, did look at the totality of the sentences, the amount involved, the fact that there was no regret and that this offence was committed while the applicant was on bail.

(1)    (1979) H.K.L.R. 491

5. We do not consider the sentences were wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal against the sentences is refused.