HKSAR v. Chan Kwok Ping
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 1216/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 February 1999.
1. This is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was convicted of possession of a small quantity of heroin and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. When the Magistrate considered sentence, he had called for a DATC report, but the DATC was of a view that there was no benefit to be served by admitting the Appellant and that was why DATC treatment was not recommended.
|
HCMA001216/1998 HCMA1216/98 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1216 OF 1998 --------------
-------------- Coram : Hon Woo J in Court Date of hearing : 26 February 1999 Date of judgment : 26 February 1999 --------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------- 1. This is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was convicted of possession of a small quantity of heroin and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. When the Magistrate considered sentence, he had called for a DATC report, but the DATC was of a view that there was no benefit to be served by admitting the Appellant and that was why DATC treatment was not recommended. 2. The Appellant complains that two other defendants in the case, who were also convicted of possession of dangerous drugs, were given lighter sentences in that one was sentenced to DATC and the other was only fined - the Appellant was D3 in the case before the Magistrate; D2 was sent to DATC and D4 was fined. D4 was in fact charged with possession of Part I Poison, unrelated to what was found in the possession of the Appellant, and a comparison would be improper. 3. The dangerous drugs found on the Appellant and also on D2 were heroin and they were traces and the quantity was more or less the same. The main distinction between the two cases, that is the case against the Appellant and the case against D2 as far as sentence is concerned, is that D2 had a clear record at the time and the Appellant had six previous records of possession or trafficking in dangerous drugs. The learned Magistrate considered the authorities and guidelines very thoroughly, and accepted the lowest sentence in the range of sentence that should be passed on an offender with a history of multiple offences of possession of drugs. He gave the Appellant six months. The Appellant is not complaining about the activation of the suspended sentence of another six months. 4. I do not see that any complaint against the learned Magistrate's decision is justified and the appeal is dismissed.
Representation: Mr Robert K.Y. Lee, S.G.C. of D.P.P., for HKSAR Appellant in person, Present |