The Queen v. Li Kin-keung

HCMA000955/1986

BETWEEN:

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date: 20th November, 1986.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against sentence by LI Kin-keung("D.1"), who pleaded guilty to two charges, one of theft and one of common assault, for which he was sentenced to 15 months' and 2 months' imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The facts put before the court show that D.1 had removed a wallet from a handbag of a fellow passenger on a bus and handed it to an accomplice. The victim saw what had happened and shouted.  A fellow passenger went to the victim's assistance and helped to detain D.1, who resisted. During the struggle, the passenger was elbowed by D.1 in the chest to try and get loose.

3. D.l has six previous convictions, one of them for theft and three for attempted theft. He   has been fined, he has been put on probation and he has served two short prison sentences of 1 and 6 months respectively.

4. In ordinary circumstances the sentence imposed by the magistrate would, in my view, be perfectly proper. In this case, however, it was submitted to him that a proper course for him to adopt would have been to make a detention order under the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance, since D.1 had been a drug dependent for some years and had only started to commit offences after he became involved with drugs.

5. The magistrate very sensibly called for reports both from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and from a probation officer. Both of these reports confirm that D.1 is a drug addict. The probation officer concluded that D.1 might benefit more from a period of compulsory drug withdrawal treatment. The Treatment Centre report confirms that D.1 was an addict and stated he was considered suitable for admission to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

6. The magistrate, when imposing the sentences of imprisonment, gave no reasons as to why he rejected these recommendations.  This is one of those instances where I think that it is proper for me to interfere with the sentences imposed by the magistrate. I quash the sentences of imprisonment which were passed on D.1 and substitute instead a detention order under section 3 of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Mr. A.A. Bruce, Senior Crown Counsel, for Crown.