R. v. LI MEI HO and Another

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 686
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

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

1. There are two applicants before us. The first applicant Li Mei-ho, a woman aged 25 years, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of three years' imprisonment. The second applicant Fung Lin-cheong aged 29 seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2. The two applicants were jointly charged and tried before Deputy District Judge Duggan and convicted after trial as follows.

3. The first charge, against the first applicant only, charged her with trafficking in 0.29 grams of a mixture containing 0.08 grams of salts of esters of morphine at the Fu Kwok Restaurant at Block 7 Shek Lei Estate, Tsuen Wan on 17 August 1994.

4. The second charge, against both applicants, charged them with trafficking in 0.35 grams of a mixture containing a trace of heroin hydrochloride at the staircase at Block 7 Shek Lei Estate, Tsuen Wan on 16 November 1994.

5. The third charge, against the first applicant only, charged her with trafficking in 0.35 grams of a mixture containing 0.01 grams of heroin hydrochloride at the staircase of Block 7 Shek Lei Estate on 17 November 1994.

6. The charges arose from an undercover operation conducted by the Royal Hong Kong Police Force.

7. Dealing first with the sentences totalling three years' imprisonment in relation to the first applicant, it is clear that the offences occurred in the course of repeated criminal conduct engaged in by her.

8. The sentences are well within the guidelines set down by this court. They are neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle and the application is dismissed.

9. As to the second applicant he did not testify at his trial. The prosecution evidence was left uncontradicted at the end of the day. The Deputy District Judge was well entitled to convict upon that evidence. No valid grounds of appeal have been put forward and his application must be dismissed.