R. v. Louella Avila Dixon

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No.405
(Criminal)

__________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Stuart-Moore, J.: (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 1st August 1994 this Applicant was convicted by a jury on the two counts she faced of trafficking in methylamphetamine hydrochloride which is better known as ice. Counts 1 and 2 on the indictment related to 1.79 grammes and 95.64 grammes of that dangerous drug respectively. Those two charges reflected the evidence of the police that the smaller quantity came from a pocket of the shirt that the Applicant was wearing on her arrest, and the larger amount was found hidden in a hollowed-out telephone book under her bed. Duffy J. sentenced her to a total of seven years' imprisonment.

2. In grounds which are settled by the Applicant herself she applies for leave to appeal both against her conviction and her sentence. In effect, so far as her conviction is concerned, she complains about lies being told by police which have obscured her innocence.

3. In relation to her sentence, she makes reference to the hardship that this has caused, as she is recently divorced, she comes from a poor family in the Philippines and it is she who is paying the school fees of the three children.

4. We have been provided with a transcript of the learned trial Judge's summing-up to the jury. We have been able to study what the jury was directed as to the law, and we have been able to see how he reminded the jury about the salient parts of the evidence. It was a faultless summing-up of the utmost fairness to this Applicant, and we can find no grounds for interfering with the jury's verdict.

5. As to the sentence, one of the admitted facts about the Applicant's background was that she is a user of ice. This was advanced in mitigation by her counsel at the conclusion of the trial, and the reality may well be that she was paying for her drug use by trafficking in this substance. It is difficult to say more than that because the Applicant did not give evidence in her trial. The learned Judge stated that he would take as his bracket for sentence between eight and twelve years' imprisonment. It appears that he was referring to the sentencing bracket in Lau Tak-ming. The Applicant was the beneficiary, if the learned Judge was doing so, of a mistake in her favour because the tariffs set down for trafficking in this kind of drug, ice, are contained in the case of Cheng Kwok-hung (Application for Review No.15 of 1990). What this Applicant ought to know is that the tariff of sentence should have been between ten and fourteen years. She has been very fortunate in receiving a sentence as low as seven years. We find that there is no merit in this application whatsoever and leave is refused.