HKSAR v. CHAN PIK KI

CACC 302/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 439/1998)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave out of time to appeal against the sentence of 9 years imprisonment imposed upon her for trafficking in a large quantity of methamphetamine hydrochlodride. The amount being 279.73 grammes of a mixture containing 195.03 grammes of narcotic content. She received this sentence on 23 July 1999 after a trial in the High Court before Mr Recorder Ching Y Wong, SC. The reason she gives for the delay of almost a year in applying for leave appears to be that she was very tired and it was only with time that she realised the unfairness of her having to accept all the consequences of her involvement in this matter.

2. The justification she has put forward is not such as would enable us to grant leave to proceed out of time. However, it is worth adding that even had we been disposed to grant leave the prospects of the application itself being successful would have been virtually non-existent.

3. The applicant was stopped and searched in the early hours of the morning. The dangerous drugs were found in her handbag. According to the prosecution case she immediately after being cautioned admitted that she was delivering the dangerous drugs for a reward of $5,000.

4. The tariff in accordance with AG v Ching Kwok-hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 is approximately 12 years imprisonment for this quantity of "ice".

5. It appears that the Judge took an extremely lenient view of this offence on account of the apparent malign influence of her then current boyfriend and the fact that she had been experiencing some health problems. Reference was made to various medical reports although these were not amongst the papers before us. She appears to have been suffering from epilepsy.

6. Be that as it may the personal mitigating factors do not weigh heavily in the balance in relation to an offence of this gravity. There would have been no grounds to support the contention that the sentence imposed was in any way excessive or wrong in principle. The application is accordingly dismissed. As it is devoid of merit we order that 1 month of the time she has served in prison will not count towards her sentence.