香港特別行政區 訴 徐玉蓮
Applicant failed to identify any arguable ground for appeal: the sentence was within the applicable guideline (Tam Yi Chun), the court had already applied a 40% reduction for plea/cooperation, the prosecution had legitimate reasons for not calling the applicant as witness, and alleged defence counsel shortcomings...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 899
- Parties
- Applicant: TSUI Yuk lin (徐玉蓮); Respondent: The HKSAR (香港特別行政區)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 7 August 2019
- Case Number
- CACC103/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence (conviction Appeal Withdrawn; Leave to Appeal Sentence Refused)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed/withdrawn; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
- Legal Topics
- Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs, Sentencing Discounts for Assistance and Plea, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Prosecutorial Witness Decisions, Leave to Appeal
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
TSUI Yuk lin (徐玉蓮)
Applicant
The HKSAR (香港特別行政區)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence (conviction Appeal Withdrawn; Leave to Appeal Sentence Refused)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an arguable ground to appeal conviction
- 2 Whether the sentence was excessive given first‑offender status and alleged application of a 14‑year guideline
- 3 Whether the applicant's cooperation warranted further reduction in sentence
Ratio Decidendi
Applicant failed to identify any arguable ground for appeal: the sentence was within the applicable guideline (Tam Yi Chun), the court had already applied a 40% reduction for plea/cooperation, the prosecution had legitimate reasons for not calling the applicant as witness, and alleged defence counsel shortcomings did not justify further mitigation; accordingly leave to appeal against sentence was refused and the conviction appeal was not pursued.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed/withdrawn; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal conviction dismissed/withdrawn by applicant
- Leave to appeal against sentence refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 103/2018 [2019] HKCA 899 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服定罪及刑罰上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2018年第103號 (原高等法院刑事案件2015年第316號及2016年第428號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 TSUI Yuk lin (徐玉蓮) __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期： 2019年8月7日 判案日期： 2019年8月7日 判 案 書 申請人承認一項‘販運危險藥物罪’，涉及淨含毒量2.848千克的冰，處即時入獄16年。 由於申請人對法律不理解，所以在《申請上訴許可通知書》錯誤表示欲就定罪及判刑同時提出上訴，經我解釋後則確認不爭議自己曾販毒的事實並撤回前者，接著我亦把她的定罪上訴許可申請駁回。 至於刑期方面的申請，申請人在同一份《通知書》列出了她的上訴理由如下：一，她是首次犯案，但原審法官卻用上了「最高刑期」判刑，更何況她本人是「14年的舊例」；二，直至判刑結束，原審法官都沒有讓申請人說話和求情；三，從被捕一刻開始，申請人一直都配合着海關，包括供出主謀蔡某的相片和身份證副本，及參與以蔡某為目標的監控遞送行動；四，控方沒有在蔡某的審訊傳召申請人出庭頂證蔡某。 申請人還投訴，原審辯方大律師沒有盡力幫助她。例子包括：律師沒有轉交申請人寫給海關的感謝信、感謝他們把申請人捕獲以免毒品流入市場；律師沒有轉交探囚牧師為申請人寫的求情信；律師未能說服控方傳召她出庭頂證蔡某；律師沒有跟進申請人指有獄友可一同頂證蔡某的指稱。 正如我在庭上指出，申請人提出的理由是無一成立的。 例如：一，控方不傳召她作供頂證蔡某，是因為（a）她的無損利益筆錄和被捕後的警誡供詞有嚴重衝突和（b）警方有足夠起訴蔡某的證供，即蔡某的個人資料，以及他留在包裹冰毒的膠紙上的指紋；二，申請人雖然向海關提供了一定程度的協助，但監控遞送並不成功、沒有把蔡某當場捕獲，更何況原審法官已因為申請人配合執法當局而給了她認罪後一共40%的刑期扣減；三，原審辯方大律師據稱沒有做妥的事情明顯不構成進一步的減刑因素；四，原審法官沒有用上什麼「最高刑期」判刑，申請人所指的「14年舊例」則實為案例 Tam Yi Chun，在本案判刑時適用；五，經我和答辯方核實，申請人的量刑，全然符合案例定下的刑期指引；六，原審時有大律師代表的申請人投訴自己沒有機會直接向法官陳詞/求情，是出於她對法律制度的誤解。 總括而言，申請人實無任何合理可供辯的理據可支持她就刑期提出上訴，因此我拒絕向她發出有關的上訴許可。 我已在庭上就《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83W條有關‘扣時’的風險向申請人作出警告。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人： 無律師代表, 親自應訊 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官劉德偉先生代表