HKSAR v. WONG CHEUK LAM

CACC 280/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 358 OF 2000)

____________________________________

_______________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1 This is an appeal against sentence, leave having been granted by the single judge. The appellant has today sought an adjournment, and has addressed us at length on the facts that she would wish to advance as to the merits of the appeal through a legal representative, and as to why she wants an adjournment, and we also heard Mr Madigan. We saw no good reason for an adjournment, and that application has been refused.

2 The appellant pleaded guilty before Deputy Judge Toh upon two counts of a three-count indictment. Count 1 charged that she and a man called Lee Wing Cheong (D2) together with a person called Nip (who was not charged) trafficked in 26.42 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride ("ice") on 11 July 2000; and in 27.34 grammes of the drug ice on 13 July 2000 (Count 2). The judge took an overall starting point of nine years for the two offences, and sentenced the appellant to a term of four years on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently; a total, therefore, of four years.

3 The appellant says that the sentence is too long, as to which she has addressed us in detail about her circumstances; and in her written grounds she has also drawn our attention the fact that she has a daughter of whom she wishes to take care, presently in the care of her aged mother-in-law.

4 The facts are that at the instigation of the ICAC an informant contacted the appellant for drugs. As a result drugs were delivered to the informant, the second defendant making arrangements for the delivery of drugs and the man Nip actually delivering them. This was Count 1.

5 Two days later the informant contacted the appellant and again asked for drugs and the same procedure followed: D2 arranged the delivery, and Nip did the delivering. The appellant was arrested on 17 July, and she admitted her complicity in the supply of the drugs.

6 The judge took a starting point of nine years' imprisonment for the two offences; against which, as a total for those two charges, there can be no complaint. Given that the appellant was obviously a dealer engaging others to work for her, she was fortunate that a higher starting point was not taken. She was aged 28 years at the date of sentence. She was not a person of previous good character. She has previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs and one for criminal damage.

7 Credit was given for the appellant's plea. The judge did not state what that was as a percentage. A correct proportion was one-third. The judge gave discount for what she described as the element of entrapment. This discount was not warranted. This was a case of a regular dealer in drugs. There was no question of this offender being encouraged to commit an offence which she would not otherwise have committed. Only the knowledge that the buyer was an informer would have halted her intention to pursue this particular deal.

8 There were other mitigating factors which the judge rightly took into account. Despite them, the appellant was fortunate to have received a discount in excess of 50%. As for the daughter, the daughter to whom the appellant refers is aged, it would appear, about 4 years. This appellant engaged on a deliberate course of conduct and employed others to assist her in trafficking drugs. She cannot, in the circumstances, pray in aid the need to look after her daughter, unfortunate for the daughter though that may be.

9 Accordingly, this appeal against sentence is dismissed.