R. v. PUN FUNG LIN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 282

(Criminal)

___________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Ching JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted of two charges and seeks leave to appeal against conviction and sentence in both of them.

2. The first conviction was for possession of dangerous drugs. On 4th July, 1994, she was stopped and searched in the street outside her residence. A bag was found on her containing 6.65 grammes of a mixture of which 2.52 grammes were salts of esters of morphine. Upon arrest she said that it was for her own consumption. The defence, if such it can be called, was that the drugs were not found upon her at all but that they were in the bathroom of her home. No defence of any sort was shown to this charge and the application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

3. The second conviction was for trafficking in dangerous drugs. After her arrest she was found to have keys upon her with which entry to her premises was gained. In the premises there was found rent receipts in her name and other objects including nine bags containing 134.52 grammes of a mixture of which 47.83 grammes were salts of esters of morphine, another bag containing many small plastic bags and a set of postal scales. The defence was that the drugs were not hers at all but that the police, having found nothing in her room, brought them and pretended to have found them there. All of these matters were canvassed at the trial. The Judge saw and heard both the witnesses for the prosecution and the applicant. He accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and rejected that of the applicant. Nothing has been shown to us which would entitle us to interfere with the findings of fact and the application for leave to appeal against this conviction is also refused.

4. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment on the first conviction of 18 months and to a term of imprisonment on the second conviction of 6½ years, the sentences to be served concurrently. On the first charge the Judge took a starting point of 2 years but gave credit for the applicant's admission that the drugs were hers and made a deduction of 6 months. On the second charge the Judge took a starting point of 7 years and gave a reduction of 6 months. His reason for doing so was the mitigation advanced. Neither of the starting points was too high. Nor were the deductions too short. Indeed, the reduction on the second charge does not appear to have been justified but we are content to allow it to remain. The applicant has a long record of drug related offences, including one for possession for the purposes of trafficking in 1982 for all of which she was treated leniently. We cannot see any grounds for interfering and the application for leave to appeal against both sentences is dismissed.