Lai Fai-ping v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 362/1970 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 August 1970 before Rigby, CJ.
Criminal law – sentencing – loitering – larceny – drug addiction – probation bond – conditional rehabilitation – appeal against sentence – Appellant pleaded guilty to loitering at night and larceny of a bicycle – sentenced to 3 months consecutive with 6 months – had long criminal record and was a heavy drug addict – on appeal, Rigby CJ adjourned to explore drug treatment – SARDA agreed to accept appellant – court found imprisonment would likely lead to a life of crime – appeal allowed – sentences set aside – appellant to enter into a 3-year probation bond with condition to undergo drug treatment at Sek Kwu Chau Centre and after-care by SARDA
Legal issues: Sentencing for drug-addicted offender
Outcome: Appeal allowed; sentences set aside; appellant to enter into a bond for 3 years with conditions.
|
CACC000362/1970 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 362 OF 1970 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Rigby, CJ Date of Judgment: 20 August 1970 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant, who is aged 22, pleaded guilty to the charges preferred against him of loitering at night and larceny of a bicycle. He was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment on the first charge and 6 months' imprisonment on the second charge, such sentences to run consecutively. It is to be noted that the sentence of 3 months' imprisonment on the first charge is in fact the maximum sentence that can be passed for this type of offence. 2. The brief facts of the case were that on the evening of the 8th June the appellant was seen by police officers on duty riding a bicycle in the street. He was seen to get off the bicycle, park it by the roadside and then go over and look at cars that were parked in the immediate vicinity. He was seen to peep through the windows of these cars and try to open the doors. After this had been going on for some time the police approached him and arrested him. He was then asked about the bicycle and he admitted quite frankly that he had in fact stolen that bicycle from a market area about an hour before he was arrested by the police. He led the police to the place where he had taken the bicycle. After some enquiry by the police they were able to locate the owner of the bicycle. It is quite clear, therefore, that it was entirely due to his frank admission of having stolen the bicycle that the police were able satisfactorily to settle the matter and return the bicycle to its owner. The appellant appeals against the sentences which were ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently. 3. When the appeal first came before me the appellant who, unhappily, despite his relative youth, has a long record of previous convictions said that the cause of his trouble was that he was a drug addict. He admitted that he had already been given a chance in the past of having been sent to Tai Lam Chung Prison, as it then was, where he might have been cured. It seemed to me, however, when I looked at the long record of convictions of this young man aged 22, that he had virtually come to what might fairly be described as the crossroad of his life, and if he is simply sent to prison for these offences the probability will be that he will be in and out of prison for the rest of his life. Bearing in mind his plea that the root cause of his trouble was the fact that he was addicted to drugs, I thought it proper to adjourn the case and to ascertain whether there was any possibility of him being treated for his drug addiction. Enquiries were made at my request from the Society for the Aid and Rehabilitation of Drug Addicts, and I am most grateful to that voluntary institution for the co-operation and assistance that they have accorded in this matter. 4. I have before me a letter from the Superintendent of Social Services, on behalf of what is known as SARDA, and I also have before me a report signed by Mr. T.Y. Tong, who interviewed the appellant on behalf of SARDA. Finally, I have a report before me from the Medical Officer at the Victoria Remand Prison confirming that the appellant is in fact a heavy drug addict. The report from SARDA indicates that that voluntary institution is prepared to accept the appellant and give him an opportunity to be cured of his drug addiction. I would emphasise, however, that SARDA is, of course, a voluntary institution and that patients are only accepted there on a voluntary basis. 5. I propose to give this appellant an opportunity, which may well be his last, to cure himself, or to assist others to cure him, of his drug addiction. I propose, therefore, to enquire from the appellant whether he is prepared to enter into a bond under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance to be under the care, supervision and control of a probation officer for a period of 3 years. I propose further to make it a special condition of that bond, provided he is prepared to enter into it, that he shall go to SARDA - or rather to the Sek Kwu Chau Centre run by SARDA - for such period as the SARDA authorities consider necessary and to remain at their institution for such period as they consider necessary in order that he may be treated for his addiction; such period, of course, not to extend beyond the duration of the bond of 3 years. I propose, furthermore, to make it a further condition that after he is released from SARDA he shall accept and comply with the after-care supervision and control of the SARDA authorities to ascertain whether he is in fact cured of his addiction.
6. The appeal will be allowed. The sentences will be set aside and the appellant to enter into a bond on the terms and conditions I have indicated. (Judgment delivered) |