HKSAR v. CHAN LAI HING, CHRISTINE

CACC 54/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 722 OF 2005)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

 -----------------------

1. On 6 February 2006, the applicant, Chan Lai Hing, Christine, was convicted on her own plea before Judge Yuen in the District Court of two charges.  The first charge was trafficking in dangerous drugs involving 3 plastic bags of 13.81 grammes of a mixture containing 12.69 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 4 plastic bags containing 5.69 grammes of a crystalline object containing 5.62 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.  The second charge was that having been admitted to bail to attend court for the first charge, the applicant without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to custody.  The judge took a starting point of 6 years 6 months for the first charge and 6 months for the second charge.  She gave a full one-third discount to the applicant for her guilty plea to both charges, resulting in the respective sentences of 4 years 4 months and 4 months.  She ordered 3 months of the sentence on the second charge to be served concurrently, resulting in an overall sentence of 4 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.

2. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence, saying that it is too long.

3. In her Reasons for Sentence, the judge followed the guidelines in R v Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 on heroin and in R v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 on methamphetamine hydrochloride.  She also referred to the authorities on cocktail drug cases such as Wong Kam Wo [2001] 2 HKLRD 290 and Cheung Kwok Leung, Lowence, CACC 539/2002 and considered that a starting point of 6 years 6 months to be appropriate for the first charge.  

4. In my judgment, there is nothing against principle on the judge’s approach to sentencing, and the starting point of 6 years 6 months adopted by her cannot be said to be manifestly excessive.  The same applies to the sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment adopted as the starting point for the second charge, and the overall sentence of 4 years and 5 months.  

5. In the circumstances, the application for leave to appeal against sentence must be dismissed.

6. I remind the applicant that she is entitled to make a fresh application to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of today.  If she wishes to retain a lawyer, that lawyer would act for her in her fresh application.  However, I warn her that if the Court is of the view that her application has no merit, it can order a loss of time that she has spent in custody to be taken away from the counting of her service of the term of imprisonment, and that the court can also increase sentence.