R. v. LOR CHUEN HING and Another

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 219
(Criminal)

______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Liu, J.A.:

1. Lor Chuen Hing faced two counts in the High Court both for trafficking. Both counts related to matters which occurred on the same day, 29 October 1993.

2. The first count charged her with trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 27.56 gms of mixture containing 6.87 gms of salts of esters of morphine. The scene of the trafficking charge was outside 1B, Nanking Street, Yaumatei. The second count related to trafficking at Room 306, Block A, 2nd Floor, 39A Jordan Road. The quantity involved was 82.91 gms of a mixture containing 62.73 gms of salts of esters of morphine. Lor pleaded not guilty and she faced a jury trial. The facts are that in Nanking Street, Lor was caught by police officers with a quantity of white power in a box in her purse. The quantity of white powder was as stated in the first count. Thereafter, Lor led the police to an address which was a wrong address for her residence. Later, the police took Lor to Wah Fung Building, the address in the second count where two males were found. They were Mr Luk and another man called Yip. In those premises the quantity stated in the second count was retrieved by police officers. Lor was found guilty. The judge sentenced her to three years and eight years respectively, both sentences to run concurrently. Apparently, Lor feels aggrieved and she seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

3. In the home-made Grounds of Appeal, Lor puts down as her reason that the sentences are too heavy. The tariff or the range for sentences for the quantity in the second count is between eight to twelve years. The judge took into consideration that Lor is a young woman, that she was less culpable and that people who were really running the trafficking were at large. The judge also took into consideration Lor's almost clear record. He sentenced her to eight years' imprisonment for the second count, at the end of the lower range of sentences for this type of offence. For the relatively smaller quantity in count one she was sentenced to prison for a term of three years, made to run concurrently with her other sentence. In the circumstances, there is no merit for a reduction. Her application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

4. Mr Luk was facing only one count before the jury. He was trafficking in a dangerous drug on 29 October 1993, at Room 306, Block A, 2nd Floor, 39A Jordan Road. He was one of the males found in the premises in circumstances I have referred to in the case of Madam Lor. The applicant emphasises that he did not rent the premises, that there were no fingerprints of his found inside the premises, minimising his involvement, and that he had no key to the property in question. The applicant maintains that his role in the trafficking was not a major one. In the case against him and Madam Lor, the judge accepted that the prime movers were not caught. The quantity being the same and the applicant's circumstances being no different from those of madam Lor, within the range of sentences for this type of trafficking offences, between eight to twelve years, he was given a sentence of eight, again at the end of the lower range. As to the two years sentence passed on the applicant in the District Court case, that prosecution and the present one are completely different ones, involving different offences. We note the applicant's minor role in the trafficking and the remorse he says he has before us. But taking all into consideration, we do not find any justification for interfering with the sentence passed on him by the judge, which was at the lower end of the scale in the guidelines.

5. His application for leave to appeal against sentence is also dismissed.