HKSAR v. Tsang Heung Keung

HCMA000882/1999

HCMA 882/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 882 OF 1999

-----------------

------------

Coram : Deputy Judge Tong in Court

Date of hearing : 17 November 1999

Date of judgment : 17 November 1999

--------------------

J U D G M E N T

--------------------

1. The Appellant was charged with injecting a dangerous drug, namely, heroin and midazoleun. He pleaded guilty before the Principal Magistrate in North Kowloon Magistracy and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He now appeals against this sentence.

2. The learned Magistrate had fully explained the basis of the sentence in his Reason for Sentence. Relying on the authority of R. v. Law Sing, HCMA 890 of 1996, the Magistrate considered that there was an aggravating feature in the present case, that was a display of the paraphernalia of drug consumption in a public place, namely, the platform of the Mass Transit Railway ("MTR"). While the usual sentence for possession of apparatus is three months on a plea, it was adjusted up to six months in view of the aggravation.

3. Conducting his own appeal, the Appellant produced a letter this morning stating that he could be considered as a victim of drugs which is just a bad habit, like gambling and alcoholism. I find it very unfortunate that the Appellant holds that view. The Appellant further stated that at the time he was in a hurry to go to the hospital to see his wife, and so he had no alternative but to use the MTR platform to do the injection. The Appellant also stated that he has a 14 year old daughter who is now studying in Form Three.

4. Having considered the circumstances, I am in complete agreement with the sentencing Magistrate. There must be an element of deterrence here in order to protect public places from being utilized by drug users. It appears that the Appellant's family is in difficulties, but these are the consequences he has to face if he chooses to take drugs. I do not consider that he is a hopeless person as the Appellant stated in the letter, but it is really up to him whether he wants to continue with this vile habit. The sentence is not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Representation:

Mr David Leung, SGC of DPP, for HKSAR

Appellant in person, present