HKSAR v. Law Wai Hing

Read the full judgment text of HCMA 223/2002 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 5 June 2002.

1. The appellant was convicted on 18 February 2002 of two charges, one of possession of a dangerous drug and the other of going equipped for stealing. In respect of the sentence passed in respect of the charge of going equipped for stealing, the appellant has no argument. It is in respect of the sentence of possession of a dangerous drug that he takes issue.

Case No.HCMA 223/2002
Court
High Court CFI
Date05 Jun 2002
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMA000223/2002

HCMA223/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.223 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3797 OF 2001)

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

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
LAW WAI HING Appellant

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

Coram: Hon Gall J in Court

Date of Hearing: 5 June 2002

Date of Judgment: 5 June 2002

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.The appellant was convicted on 18 February 2002 of two charges, one of possession of a dangerous drug and the other of going equipped for stealing. In respect of the sentence passed in respect of the charge of going equipped for stealing, the appellant has no argument. It is in respect of the sentence of possession of a dangerous drug that he takes issue.

2.The argument of Ms See, for the appellant is that the appellant ought to have been given the usual one-third discount to the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment to reflect his plea of guilty. Had that been so, given the overlap of sentence ordered by the magistrate, the appellant would have been sentenced to eight months' imprisonment on the 2nd charge and a total of 11 months' imprisonment in all.

3.Ms Leung, for the Secretary for Justice very properly concedes that ought to have been the position. The appeal against sentence is therefore allowed to the extent that the sentence in respect of the charge of possession of a dangerous drug is reduced to eight months' imprisonment. Three months of the 1st charge of going equipped for stealing is to run consecutively with that charge and six months concurrent, making a total of 11 months' imprisonment. The appellant will therefore serve a total of 11 months' imprisonment.

4.Costs of today for the appellant.

(T.M. Gall)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Ms Rosaline S.Y. Leung, SGC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Ms Sabrina See, instructed by Director of Legal Aid, for the Appellant