HKSAR v. CHAN KIT LING

CACC 342/2015
[2018] HKCA 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 342 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 440 OF 2014)

_______________

_______________

________________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

________________________________________

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

1.  On 15 September 2015, the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in 951.31 g of ICE.  On the same day, she was sentenced by DHCJ Beeson to 14 years’ imprisonment.  On 8 October 2015, she filed her Notice of Application for Leave to appeal against sentence.

2.  The facts of this case are of no significance. Suffice it to say that on 1 June 2014, the applicant, a local resident with multiple trafficking and other drug-related previous convictions, was caught carrying ICE into Hong Kong through the Lok Ma Chau Control Point.

3.  More important is the fact that six months before her plea and sentence, the applicant began offering her assistance to the authorities which culminated in four non-prejudicial statements.  They were dated 16 March 2015, 2 April 2015, 29 June 2105 and 4 February 2016.  This led to the arrest and prosecution of a person called Cheung for the offence of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug (HCCC 438 of 2016).  The applicant gave evidence and testified to couriering ICE for Cheung on four occasions the last one of which was 1 June 2014, when she was arrested.  The applicant was obviously believed by the jury: Cheung was convicted by a majority of 6 to 1 and sentenced to 25 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

4.  That being the case, the parties are ad idem that the applicant is entitled to a 50% discount in sentence: Z v HKSAR (2007) 10 KKCFAR 183.  Working from the original starting point of her sentence of 21 years, the correctness of which is not challenged, her new sentence should be one of 10½ years’ imprisonment.

5.  For the above reasons, we grant the applicant leave to appeal and treating the hearing of her application as the appeal proper, allow her appeal.  We order that her sentence of 14 years be quashed and substituted by one of 10 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.