Cheung Chi Hok v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 405/1971 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. In March of this year the appellant pleaded guilty to possession of dangerous drugs and was about to be remanded in custody for a medical report as to his suitability for treatment at S.A.R.D.A. 's centre for drug addicts at Shek Kwu Chau When he announced that he did not wish to go to Shek Kwu Chau but wanted to go to jail. The learned Magistrate thereupon sentenced him to 4 months imprisonment.
|
CACC000405/1971 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 405 OF 1971 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Pickering, J. Date of Judgment: 3rd August, 1971. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. In March of this year the appellant pleaded guilty to possession of dangerous drugs and was about to be remanded in custody for a medical report as to his suitability for treatment at S.A.R.D.A. 's centre for drug addicts at Shek Kwu Chau When he announced that he did not wish to go to Shek Kwu Chau but wanted to go to jail. The learned Magistrate thereupon sentenced him to 4 months imprisonment. 2. Thereafter, with admirably kindly persistence, the learned Magistrate caused a probation officer to visit the accused in his cell and explain the advisability of seeking admission to Shek Kwu Chau. Later in the day the appellant again went before the magistrate and agreed to seek admission to Shek Kwu Chau, whereupon the learned Magistrate reviewed his sentence of 4 months' imprisonment and eventually placed the appellant on probation for a period of 24 months - a special condition of probation being that the appellant accept and receive medical treatment as he might be directed for the cure of his addiction. 3. Subsequently the appellant failed to attend at the S.A.R.D.A. premises for an interview designed to set in train his medical treatment and was brought before a different magistrate because of his breach of the condition of the probation order. Before passing sentence, the second learned Magistrate had a report from S.A.R.D.A. that the Society was no longer willing to accept the appellant for treatment. The learned Magistrate sentenced the appellant to 9 months' imprisonment. 4. In my view it is wrong in principle that the appellant should have been sentenced to more than double the term of imprisonment which had been imposed upon him by the first Magistrate before the appellant reversed his decision not to accept treatment but to go to jail instead. Accordingly I allow the appeal and reduce the sentence to that originally imposed by the first Magistrate, that is, the sentence is reduced from 9 months to 4 months. Representation: Appellant in person. Lucas, S.C.C., for Crown. |