Yiu Yuk-ting v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 276/1973 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 May 1973.
1. The accused in this case was convicted of possessing O.6 grammes of dangerous drugs, of which O.1 gramme was salts of esters of morphine, and resisting arrest. He was sentenced to nine months and one month respectively. Against the sentences he now appeals.
|
CACC000276/1973 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 1973 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Trainor J. in Court Date of Judgment: 11 May 1973 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The accused in this case was convicted of possessing O.6 grammes of dangerous drugs, of which O.1 gramme was salts of esters of morphine, and resisting arrest. He was sentenced to nine months and one month respectively. Against the sentences he now appeals. 2. On a consideration of the case record and in particular the appellant's history - eleven previous convictions, seven of which were for drug offences - there is scant ground for any reduction. The learned magistrate in imposing the penalties considered not only the record of the appellant but also the possibility that a penalty such as the one he imposed would be of benefit to the appellant and induce him to break the mild addiction to drugs to which he found the appellant subject. 3. I decided to reduce the penalty of nine months to six months on the drug count not because of anything that was inherently wrong in the penalty imposed but for other reasons. The first was that I noticed that despite the fact that the Senior Medical Officer said that the appellant was mildly dependant on drugs the Intake Officer of the Treatment Centre said he was not a drug dependant. I did not set the opinion of the Medical Officer against that of the Intake Officer but considered that it was possible to conclude from the latter report that the appellant at last was making an effort to break with drugs. The second reason was that I was impressed by the apparent genuineness of an assurance given by the appellant that he was finished with drugs. I also attached some weight to the fact that between July of 1968 and the occurrence of the offence of which he is now convicted the appellant's only offence was in January 1972 when he was convicted of having an opium pill and was fined $50. 4. For these reasons I decided to take a chance and give the appellant what I hope will be some encouragement to him completely to withdraw from drugs and, accordingly, I reduced the penalty as I have already stated. 5. The appeal is allowed to the extent that a term of six month's imprisonment is substituted for that of nine months on the first count.
Representation: Appellant in person Mr. Stevenson, C.C. for Respondent |