LAM SIU-YUNG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000424/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 424 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN
	LAM Siu-yung	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins J.

Date of Judgment: 19th July, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against a sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed for possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

2. The police raided a flat in Kowloon. While they were there the Appellant came to the premises carrying a quantity of raw opium. She was arrested and charged and she has pleaded guilty to the offence. The retail value of the drugs is said to be $1,000 or thereabouts.

3. It is submitted on her behalf that a sentence of two years' imprisonment does not sufficiently reflect the plea of guilty. The learned magistrate, who also tried the case which became Criminal Appeal No.432 of 1972 involving a seizure of drugs at the same premises, said that in his view although the amount of the drugs seized from the present Appellant was slightly smaller the gravamen of the offence was very similar, and with respect I agree with that view. The learned magistrate in fact imposed a slightly higher sentence on the other appellant because there were two charges laid against her. I have reduced the overall sentence in that case by ordering that the sentences run concurrently instead of consecutively, which at the present time results in an equality of sentence between these two Appellants. The only question is whether if I allow the present sentence to stand the Appellant has any justifiable ground for complaint.

4. In view of what I have said about the equality in the gravamen of the offence I do not think that the Appellant would have any justifiable ground for complaint. I agree with the learned magistrate that this sort of offence cannot be treated lightly. These people were trafficking and they must pay the penalty. In my view this sentence, although it may be by some regarded as heavy, is not so manifestly excessive that I ought to interfere.

5. I would, however, add one comment. The Appellant originally pleaded Not guilty and it appears from the record that after taking some advice from her advocate she decided to plead Guilty, but the learned magistrate has not complied with s.19 of the Magistrates Ordinance, which requires that a plea of guilty shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by the defendant. In this case the learned magistrate has merely recorded a statement "After consultation Defendant pleaded Guilty". I have drawn attention to this matter on a number of occasions: magistrates are required by statute to record the actual words used and it should appear that they have done so. However, as I have said, I see no reason to interfere with this sentence and the appeal is dismissed.

 

19th July, 1972.

 

Representation: