HKSAR v. MAK WAI MING

CACC 498/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 498 OF 1998

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs after a trial before Deputy Judge Muttrie and a jury. She now seeks leave to appeal against both her conviction and the sentence of 7 1/2 years imprisonment which was imposed upon her.

2. The charge read:

"STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

Mak Wai-ming, on the 5th day of November,1997 at Room 1117, Hing Tung House, Tung Tau Estate, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 109.07 grammes of a mixture containing 76.33 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 308 tablets containing 6.2 grammes of midazolam maleate."

3. The facts were quite simple. Police officers searched the small apartment occupied by the Applicant. There was no contest that she was in possession of the dangerous drugs referred to in the charge. It was her case that all of the dangerous drugs were in her possession for her own consumption. She gave evidence concerning her addiction to heroin.

4. The prosecution mainly relied upon the amount of the dangerous drugs seized to prove that the Applicant possessed the dangerous drugs for trafficking. They also placed reliance upon some of the surrounding circumstances. There was evidence of a large number of plastic bags and also of a set of scales which was found on the premises. The Applicant went into the witness box and gave evidence that the dangerous drugs were for her own consumption. She accepted that the amount seized would have lasted her about 6 months.

5. According to the prosecution evidence the value of the dangerous drugs was approximately $60,000. The Applicant gave evidence concerning her financial circumstances from which it appeared that her total income was somewhere in the region of $7,000 per month.

6. The Judge summed the case up very fairly to the jury and they were satisfied at the appropriate level that the charge had been proved.

7. In her grounds of appeal the Applicant simply reiterated her contention that the dangerous drugs were for her own consumption. As to sentence she simply states that in her opinion the sentence was "too long".

8. Before us, she added nothing of any significance.

9. Nothing has been said by the Applicant to raise any doubt concerning the safety of this conviction and this application is dismissed. The application to appeal against the sentence imposed is also without merit and is dismissed The sentence was in fact a very merciful one.

10. Having regard to the lack of merit in this application we order that 3 months of the time the Applicant has spent in custody will not count towards her sentence.