Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMA000109/2001

HCMA109/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.109 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 4979 OF 2000)

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

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent

	AND

	LEE SHEUNG CHUEN	Appellant

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

Coram: Hon Gall J in Court

Date of Hearing: 28 March 2001

Date of Judgment: 28 March 2001

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was convicted on 2 January 2001 of possession of an apparatus fit and intended for the injection of dangerous drug. He was sentenced to a period of eight months' imprisonment. He now appeals that sentence.

2. The facts were that at about 9:45 am on 9 November 2000, the appellant was seen in Chai Wan Road outside Yue Tai House, acting in a suspicious manner. He was stopped by a police officer who suspected he might be in possession of dangerous drugs. The officer searched the appellant and found inside the left hidden pocket of his wind-breaker one used syringe, which was later tested by the government chemist and found to contain traces of no.4 heroin. Under caution, the appellant admitted that the syringe was used for injecting a dangerous drug and asked for a chance.

3. In his Reasons for Sentence, the magistrate said :

"In sentencing the Appellant I took a staring point of 12 months imprisonment and reduced the sentence to one of eight months imprisonment to reflect his plea of guilty. The other factors referred to in mitigation did not justify any further reduction in the sentence. I accordingly sentenced the Appellant to a term of eight months imprisonment."

4. Miss Chan, for the respondent, concedes that in the case of R v. Law Sing [1996] 4 HKC 477 at 479B, it was held that a sentence in the order of three months' imprisonment was the accepted tariff for cases of possession of apparatus fit and intended for the consumption of drugs after a plea. The maximum penalty for this offence is three years' imprisonment and the appropriate sentence which should have been passed by the magistrate in this case was one of three months' imprisonment.

5. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence of eight months' imprisonment be set aside and one of three months' imprisonment is imposed in lieu thereof.