HKSAR v. Chan Ping Tong
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 295/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 21 April 1999.
1. The Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of dangerous drug, namely, 0.28 grammes of a mixture containing 0.16 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.
|
HCMA000295/1999 HCMA 295/99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 295 OF 1999 ------------------------------
----------------------- Coram : Hon Woo J in Court Date of Hearing : 21 April 1999 Date of Judgment : 21 April 1999 ------------------- J U D G M E N T ------------------- 1. The Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of dangerous drug, namely, 0.28 grammes of a mixture containing 0.16 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment. 2. In passing the sentence, the Magistrate considered that the Appellant had 23 previous convictions, seven of which were drug related. He took the starting point of a period of 12 months' imprisonment and reduced it to eight months' imprisonment in recognition of the immediate plea of guilty. There was no other mitigating factor. However, upon hearing that the Appellant was serving a sentence of three months' imprisonment at the time when the Magistrate was dealing with him, he ordered the eight months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the term which the Appellant was serving. 3. In his ground of appeal, the appellant mentions that his understanding was that of the eight months' imprisonment sentence, three months should run concurrently with his previous sentence. However, that was not what the Magistrate said as appearing from the verbatim note of the proceedings at the material time. The Magistrate said :
Either the Appellant was told a wrong version of what the Magistrate said in translation, or he misunderstood the situation. There cannot be a valid ground of appeal. 4. The Appellant complains that the sentence passed on him by the Magistrate was, in any event, too heavy, but I do not find that the starting point of 12 months' imprisonment adopted by the Magistrate was inappropriate, and a one-third reduction of that sentence from the starting point was given by the Magistrate in recognition of the Appellant's plea of guilty. I cannot find that sentence wrong either in law or on principle. Indeed, the Magistrate had reduced the sentence by allowing it to run concurrently with the former sentence which the Appellant was serving at the time. I do not see any valid ground for my disturbing the sentence passed by the Magistrate. 5. In the circumstances, I dismiss the appeal.
Representation: Mr Johnny Chan, SGC of DDP, for HKSAR Appellant in person, present |