HKSAR v. YIP SAU KING

CACC000380/1999

CACC 380/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 380 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 23 OF 1999)

____________________________________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
YIP SAU KING Applicant

_______________________________

Coram: Hon Stock JA and Lugar-Mawson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 4 June 2002

Date of Judgment: 4 June 2002

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1 This applicant seeks leave to appeal out of time against sentence. In fact she has previously abandoned her appeal against sentenceand it was accordingly dismissed. So, in effect, what she asks of this Court is to be allowed to treat that abandonment as a nullity.

2 In July 1999, the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in 1.3 kilogrammes of heroin, and was sentenced to a term of 13 years’imprisonment. On 21 July 1999 she filed a notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence and she said, in that notice,as a sole ground, that she had a brother in Australia who was ill. In October 1999, after she was refused legal aid, she gave noticeof abandonment of her application for leave to appeal against sentence. Her current application is dated 16 January 2002. In it,she says that some months previously she came to know that her sister has a brain tumour, and that her mother is very ill. She wantsto return home to take care of her family. As to why she abandoned her application in 1999, she says that it was a deliberate decisionbecause she thought that she should be accountable for her crime. In her oral submissions today, she says that she would like tolook after her younger sister and her mother, and to make a contribution to her family, and she explains allegedly difficult circumstanceswhich attach to the lives of her younger sister and mother.

3 It will be evident that there is no basis upon which to allow the applicant to reopen her application. Her decision in 1999 was afully informed decision. The matters which she now raises are matters which she is entitled, if she wishes, to take up with the Executive,but they are not matters for this Court. We would only say that the sentence itself was lenient, as she apparently realises.

4 The application, accordingly, is dismissed.

(Frank Stock) (G.J. Lugar-Mawson)
Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court of First Instance

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr Simon Tam, SGC of the Department of Justice for the Respondent