THE QUEEN v. LAI YIM-SIU

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.630
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant pleaded not guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. This charge was particularized as follows: that she on 17th March 1995 outside Room 1434, Shek Tao House, Shek Wai Kok Estate, Lei Muk Shue, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 373.81 grammes of a mixture containing 77.38 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. She was found guilty after trial before Deputy Judge Pang and a jury and sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. She now seeks leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

2. The facts are fairly routine ones. She was stopped by police officers who had been on surveillance and a bag which she was carrying was found to contain the dangerous drugs, the subject of the charge. It was her defence that she had been given the packet by a person with whom she had become acquainted and told to take it to her home and that she had no knowledge that it contained dangerous drugs.

3. In her grounds of appeal she states simply that she had pleaded not guilty because she was unaware that there was white powder in the bag. She raises no real ground of appeal against conviction and we find no merit in the suggestion that the conviction was in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory.

4. Mr. McWalters, who appears for the Crown has drawn to our attention the direction of the judge as to her previous conviction. We find nothing, however, in that direction which warrants criticism. The applicant herself gave evidence that she had two minor previous convictions for gambling. The trial judge, properly in our view, told the jury that they should ignore those convictions except insofar as they might have assisted them in their assessment of credit.

5. The application for leave to appeal against conviction must be refused.

6. As to sentence, the applicant says in her grounds that she feels that the sentence was too harsh. The trial judge when sentencing followed exactly the guidelines of this court in Lau Tak-ming. The sentence was squarely within those guidelines. Nothing has been urged which would persuade us that the sentence was in any way too harsh. That application must also be refused.