HKSAR v. Lee Kwok Keung

HCMA000022/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 22 OF 1998

_________________

________________

Coram : The Hon. Madam Justice Beeson in Court

Date of Hearing : 25 February 1998

Date of Delivery of Judgment : 25 February 1998

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. The Appellant appeals against sentence in respect of a charge of simple possession of dangerous drugs. The quantity of mixture was 0.02 grammes and the analysis shows that it contained traces of heroin hydrochloride.

2. The Magistrate sentenced the Appellant to 7 months' imprisonment for the offence; imprisonment was imposed after trial. There was a trial despite very strong evidence against the Defendant; he might have been better advised to have pleaded guilty and availed himself of the discount for such a plea.

3. The Magistrate in sentencing, had sight of the Appellant's record which was poor. He has 13 previous convictions, 6 of those are for dangerous drugs. His dangerous drug history started in 1974 at shown by the fact that he was sent to DATC for a robbery charge. His first drug offence proper was in 1985 which was a simple possession. There was a further possession in 1987 for which he was placed on Probation; in 1995 he was fined for a further case. In March 1996, he was sentenced to prison for 3 months for possession of an instrument pertaining to dangerous drugs. In June 1996 he was sentenced to jail for nine months for simple possession. In August 1997, a month before this case, he was charged and convicted of possessing equipment relating to dangerous drugs and was fined. It is hardly surprising with a record like that, particularly a very recent record, the Magistrate was considering prison. However, he did seek a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report as he was required to do. The assessment officer did not recommend a further period of drug addiction treatment; Appellant had received two terms previously but had not benefitted from either of them, according to the officer.

4. It is suggested today that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was too long and that he improperly took into account that this Appellant was arrested at a dangerous drug black spot. Considering the average range of sentence for such simple possession cases is 9-12 months, the Magistrate might be considered to have been generous in giving a 7 month sentence after trial. I do not consider the sentence was too long. I do not consider the learned Magistrate was wrong to take account of the prevalence of these offences in the area which the Appellant was convicted. Accordingly, the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Representation:

Lily Tse, S.G.C., for DPP.

Paul Wu, DLA, for Appellant.