HKSAR v. Cayamanda Neriza M
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 1055/2002 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 November 2002.
1. On 30 September 2002, the Appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception. She was sentenced to be detained in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. She now appeals against that sentence.
|
HCMA001055/2002 HCMA 1055/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2002 (ON APPEAL FROM WSCC 1503/2002) ____________
____________ Coram: Deputy High Court Judge D Pang in Court Date of Hearing: 27 November 2002 Date of Judgment: 27 November 2002 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1.On 30 September 2002, the Appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception. She was sentenced to be detained in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. She now appeals against that sentence. 2.According to the Magistrate, the admitted facts revealed that on 31 August 2002, the Appellant had attempted to pay for some clothes and belts totalling about HK$500 in retail premises in Central with a Hang Sang Bank visa card. The shop staff were however unable to get the approval code for the transaction and enquiries with the concerned card centre revealed that the visa card in question had been reported lost. 3.Upon arrest for the offence, the Appellant admitted that she picked up the visa card in the Central MTR Station and that she tried to use it because she had no money. 4.Turning to the Appellant's background, she had one previous conviction for possession of dangerous drugs in the year 2000, for which she received a fine. She was a travel agent in Hong Kong but only for a month. At the time of the offence, she was unemployed. 5.As Mr Daryanani for the prosecution points out in his written arguments, the Magistrate could very well have imposed a period of imprisonment for the offence. In other words, it is not a trivial offence for which Drug Addiction Treatment Centre, a custodial sentence, will be considered inappropriate. On the other hand, it is not such a serious offence for which DATC will be considered too lenient either. 6.In all the circumstances, the Magistrate clearly considered it to be in the Appellant's interest and the public interest if she underwent a period of compulsory drug treatment. The Magistrate was clearly entitled to come this conclusion and the appeal against sentence must be dismissed.
Representation: Mr Prakash L Daryanani, SGC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant in person |