THE QUEEN v.TSUI SUI CHING

-------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

Fuad, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the court):

1. The applicant, a 23 year-old woman named Tsui Sui Ching, pleaded guilty on 13th April this year before Mr. Nigel Jones sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court to an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was sentenced on the same day to 13 years' imprisonment. She seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2. The facts were that in the afternoon of 15th August last year she arrived at Kai Tak Airport from Bangkok. After she had passed through the ordinary customs barrier she was selected for a further routine search by customs officers. When she was taken into the search room she said that she had nothing to declare, but upon a body search, the following items were found: two packets of suspected dangerous drugs concealed inside her brassiere, a block of suspected dangerous drugs in her underwear and four blocks of suspected dangerous drugs hidden under the insoles of the shoes she was wearing. Upon examination by the Government chemist the suspected substances were found to be dangerous drugs: 1,153.32 grammes of a mixture containing 1,004.97 grammes of salts of esters of morphine.

3. When the applicant made a statement under caution, she admitted that she had been promised $60,000 for carrying the drugs from Thailand to Hong Kong. The court was told ,that the customs officers believed that she had done all she could to help with information after her arrest although the person or persons to whom she was supposed to hand over the drugs were never caught.

4. The applicant is 24 years of age and had a clear record. She has elderly parents both of whom appear to be ^suffering from some heart trouble. She herself was found to have an ovarian pregnancy which was discovered when she complained of stomach pains during her remand in custody pending trial. Her general health is now considered to be satisfactory.

5. When passing sentence, the Deputy Judge said that before taking into account mitigating circumstances, her offence placed her in the category which attracted a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment or more. He accepted that she was a courier but observed that the court had a duty to ensure that the sentence would contain an element of deterrence to others who placed themselves in a similar situation. He considered that the appropriate sentence after trial and without mitigating factors would be 23 years' imprisonment. He would allow her a discount of 8 years for her plea of guilty and accepting the mitigation urged on the court by counsel he would reduce the sentence by a further two years. That is how he arrived at the sentence of 13 years' imprisonment.

6. The applicant is not represented before us and in her grounds of appeal she repeated what was said in mitigation on her behalf by counsel before she was sentenced. She said that all her troubles arose out of her passion for gambling. She fell deep into debt and borrowed money from loan sharks which she could not repay. Her family was threatened with violence and she feared that she herself would be hurt. She promised to turn over a new leaf and hoped that she would be given a reduction of sentence.

7. No one who saw her in court today could fail to have sympathy for the position in which she finds herself. Nevertheless, the offence she committed was a very serious one and the Deputy Judge could, on the authorities, have imposed an even more severe sentence. We feel bound to refuse her application for leave to appeal.