THE QUEEN v. KAM SUK KUEN
HTML content
CACC000134/1986
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | 1986, No. 134 (Criminal) |
_______
BETWEEN
| THE QUEEN | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| KAM SUK KUEN | Applicant |
_______
Coram: Hon. Yang, J.A., Hon. Power and Hon. Penlington, JJ.
Date of Hearing: 12th June 1986
Date of Delivery of Judgment: 12th June 1986
__________
JUDGMENT
__________
Power, J.:
1. The applicant was convicted on the charge of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking after having pleaded not guilty for that charge. The trial judge was satisfied that on the 7th of November 1985, she had it her possession a dangerous drug namely 45.33 grammes of a mixture containing 6.39 grammes of salts of esters of morphine for the purpose of unlawful trafficking therein. The applicant had been apprehended by the police when she alighted from a ferry at Cheung Chau and was taken to a police station and searched. The drugs were found consealed in her underpants. It seems that she was carrying them having been requested to do so by her boy friend and that she was, to an extent, under the influence of this person. The trial judge obtained a training centre and a probation report. The probation report was not unfavourable to the applicant though the probation officer had reservations about the genuineness of her remorse.
2. The trial judge took into account her age, the fact that she was to an extent under the influence of her boy friend and the matters referred to in the reports.
3. It is clear from the reports that the applicant was not under the control of her family and was mixing with undesirable associates. We are mindful of the concern that her behaviour has occasioned her family and of their present distress. However, having considered all of the matters placed before us, we have no doubt whatsoever, that the trial judge made a proper order when he directed that the applicant be detained in a training center. Indeed, in our view, this was the only proper order. It would have been quite wrong to have placed the applicant on probation given the real possibility that the probation officer would have been unable to exercise a proper measure of supervision. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
Representation:
Mr. Andree-Wiltens, Grown Prosecutor for the Respondent
Applicant Kam Su Kuen in person