Cheung Ping Lam v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 217/1969 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 28 April 1969.
1. This appellant has been wasting the time of the court. He appeals against a sentence of four months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of dangerous drags.
|
CACC000217/1969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 217 OF 1969 -----------------
Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 28 April 1969 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins,J: 1. This appellant has been wasting the time of the court. He appeals against a sentence of four months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of dangerous drags. 2. The appellant applied to the magistrate on 1st March for a review of the sentence which was imposed on 24th February. On 1st March the appellant said:
It does not appear from the magistrate's record whether the learned magistrate asked for identification of this medical report but there is no medical report in the record on appeals which shows that the appellant is not an addict - and judging by the answers which I have been able to obtain from the appellant the magistrate would never have been able to get a straight answer had he put a question to the appellant about this medical report. However, the learned magistrate asked for a further report beyond the one from the Commissioner of Prisons saying that treatment at a Drug Treatment Centre was not appropriate. On 7th March the Medical Officer at Victeria Remand Centre signed a report in the clearest possible terms:
Upon that report the learned magistrate confirmed the sentence which was passed. 3. Despite that the appellant has come before me asserting that he has never been a drug addict and that he has never taken drugs from the date of his birth. As I have already indicated he has failed, if not refused, to give any indication of the medical report to which he was referring. He admits that blood was taken from him on two separate occasions and I have no reason to believe that this report dated 7th March is not accurate. It was not questioned by the appellant when it was produced before the magistrate and I think it would be a waste of time to summon a doctor before me in order to confirm on oath that this is a correct report. 4. The appeal is dismissed. 28th April, 1969. Representation: Mr Evans for Respondent. |