HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. VU THI KHANH

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
1926-EN-1996-08-13

THE QUEEN v. VU THI KHANH

HTML content

CACC000218/1996

  

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

  

 1996, No 218
 (Criminal)

BETWEEN  
 THE QUEEN 
 and 
 VU THI KHANH 

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

Coram: Hon Litton VP, Bokhary & Liu JJA in Court

Date of Hearing: 13 August, 1996

Date of Judgment: 13 August, 1996

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Liu JA:

1. The applicant was charged in the District Court with trafficking in a dangerous drug. The case against her was that on 11 October 1995 in the Refugee Centre, Castle Peak, she trafficked in a drug containing 15.32 gms of heroin hydrochloride in a mixture of 15.52 gms.

2. She was duly convicted by the judge and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment on 27 March 1996. The applicant feels aggrieved by the sentence and she seeks leave to appeal against it. In her home-made application for leave to appeal against sentence, she complains of the long prison term. She informs the court that she has two very young children to care for. Her husband has deserted her since 1990. She begs to be given another chance so that she may go back to her children.

3. All these matters were duly taken into consideration by the judge. For the quantity of drug in which she was trafficking, the judge gave the applicant the lowest possible term of imprisonment. The quantity called for a sentence, ranging from 5 to 8 years. She was given 5.

4. The applicant was herself a drug dependant. Her social background was likewise taken into consideration. The judge also bore in mind her 17 previous convictions involving dishonesty possession of dangerous drugs and possession of dutiable goods.

5. There is clearly no substance in her application. Her application for leave to appeal against sentence must therefore be dismissed.

 

 

(Henry Litton)(K Bokhary)(B Liu)
Vice PresidentJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

 

Representation:

Mr D G Saw - SACP Crown Prosecutor for respondent

Vu Thi Khanh - applicant in person