IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 359 OF 2014)
J U D G M E N T
1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of five years and eight months’ imprisonment imposed on her by BarnesJ following her conviction, on her own plea of guilty, on 28 October 2014 to an offence of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugson 27 January 2014 in premises at 687-689, Nathan Road, namely 27.51 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ice”) and 65.90grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
Grounds of appeal against sentence
2. In the grounds of appeal against sentence attached to Form XI, by which the applicant gave notice on 6 November 2014 of her applicationfor leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant asserted simply that she “would like to apply for leave to appeal against sentence”.
3. Although the Court directed the applicant by letter dated 26 February 2015 to file grounds of appeal against sentence and any writtensubmissions within 14 days thereof, nothing has been received by the Court.
4. By a letter filed with the Court on 16 March 2015 the applicant advised the Court that she was applying to the Free Legal AdviceScheme of the Hong Kong Bar Association and asked to be given time to discuss her case with them. However, in response to enquiriesmade of the Free Legal Advice Scheme of the Hong Kong Bar Association on 13 May 2015 the Court was advised that no application hadbeen received.
5. Today, the applicant informed the Court that she wished to withdraw her application for leave to appeal against sentence. She saidthat she did not have time to file the form of Abandonment with the Court. Needless to say, the course that she has taken has wastedthe time not only of the Court, but also of counsel for the respondent and the police officers who have attended court today. Moreimportantly, the time set aside for this hearing is time that otherwise could have been used for the hearing of other applications,no doubt some of which would have been meritorious. Those hearings had been delayed.
6. Be that as it may, in light of the stance taken by the applicant, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
Mr Glen Kong, PP of the Department of Justice, for the respondent
Applicant appeared in person