HKSAR v. KAMEEHA WANNA

CACC 115/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 296 OF 2007)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

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

1.  On 10 March 2008, the applicant, aged 42, pleaded guilty to trafficking in a mixture containing 427.15 grammes of heroin hydrochloride when she appeared before Deputy High Court Judge Geiser.  The judge, having adopted a starting point of 15½ years’ imprisonment as an appropriate level of sentence following a contested trial, gave the applicant a discount of one-third to reflect her plea.  In the result, a sentence of 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment was imposed against which the applicant now seeks leave to appeal.

2.  The facts, shortly described, revealed that the applicant had come into Hong Kong on the same flight from Bangkok as a co-defendant, Kemkaman Punnee.  In the course of time, following an initial body search, Punnee was found to have been carrying 10 small packets and 80 pellets of heroin in her body, the retail value of which was estimated at $330,000.

3.  Although the applicant was not in physical possession of any heroin, ultimately she admitted having given Punnee the drugs to carry.  The judge found that the applicant appeared to have been the ringleader in that she had arranged the trip to Hong Kong and had paid for their tickets.

4.  Under the guidelines in R v Lau Tak-ming and Ors [1990] 2 HKLR 370 at 387, the judge noted that the quantity of heroin being trafficked by the applicant fell, after trial, into the 15 to 20-year band of imprisonment for amounts involving a narcotic weight of between 400 and 600 grammes.  It is apparent, therefore, that the judge’s starting point was entirely appropriate although there could have been no valid criticism if this starting point had been a higher one to take into account the international element in the offence as a factor which added to the seriousness of the offence.

5.  The applicant’s grounds of appeal amount to a plea for leniency on the basis of her family circumstances.  These, however, cannot have any bearing on a matter of this gravity.

6.  Accordingly, the application is dismissed.