HKSAR v. Cheng Lai Yee

HCMA000101/2000

HCMA 99/2000 &
HCMA 101/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM NKCC 5893/1999)

____________

____________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM NKCC 527/1999)

____________

____________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 29 March 2000

Date of Judgment: 29 March 2000

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant in this case appeals against two sentences. The first is a sentence that was passed on her guilty plea to a charge of Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the quantity being 27.66 grams of a mixture containing 11.21 grams of heroin hydrochloride, contrary to section 8(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. The Magistrate imposed a sentence of 16 months.

2. The Magistrate also noted that the Appellant had committed this offence during the currency of a Probation Order in respect of another drug offence. The Appellant had been placed on probation in March 1999, for possession of a quantity of 20.79 grams of mixture containing 18.62 grams of heroin. (NKCC 527/1999 refers)

3. After obtaining DATC and Probation reports, the Magistrate sentenced the Appellant for the offence for which she was on probation, as well as for the extant offence, NKCC 5893/1999. The Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report said Appellant was not suitable to go on the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre programme any further, because she was a deep-rooted drug addict with 13 years of drug addiction. She had no motivation to get rid of her heroin addiction and although she had twice been sent to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre, in 1991 and 1994, she had relapsed very shortly thereafter into drug abuse.

4. The DATC Assessment Officer considered that Appellant was unlikely to benefit from another treatment programme, but would probably adversely effect other inmates of the centre. The Probation Officer concluded that the Appellant was a middle-aged mother of two children, who maintained a poor relationship with her step family but had rebuilt it in recent years. Nevertheless her drug addiction was a serious concern.

5. The Magistrate considered that the offence was a serious one and in view of the quantity he was correct. He took a starting point of two years, gave a discount for plea and sentenced the Appellant to 16 months' imprisonment. He discharged the Probation Order and sentenced the Appellant for the offence for which she had been on probation.

6. Again he took a 2 years starting point and sentenced her to 16 months' imprisonment. He took into account the totality of the sentence to be served by the Appellant, he noted that she had two young children and had made some effort, rather too late perhaps, to stop taking drugs whilst on probation. To serve the consecutive sentences would have totalled 32 months' imprisonment. The Magistrate therefore ordered that Appellant, for NKCC 527/1999, serve two months' imprisonment consecutively and 14 months concurrently with the sentence for NKCC 5893/1999. He considered that 18 months' imprisonment properly reflected the criminal culpability of the Appellant for these two offences.

7. The Magistrate acted entirely correctly in assessing these sentences. There is no reason for me to disturb them and these appeals are dismissed.

Representation:

Mr D Ozorio, SGC, for DPP

Appellant in person