Frank Peter Laugs v. The Queen

CACC000482/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 482 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Briggs, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 27th June, 1972

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. In this case the Appellant was convicted of an offence of possession of cannabis resin and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment. He appeals against his sentence.

2. On April 14th he was visited by three persons. The four of them smoked marijuana. The Appellant gave some of the drug to one of his visitors and they left. Through this action it came to the notice of the police that the Appellant had been smoking so his premises were searched. A very small quantity of the drug was discovered.

3. The Magistrate paid particular attention, perhaps too much attention to the fact that the Appellant was "distributing marijuana to persons younger and weaker than himself. It must be noted that the charge is one of simple possession not of trafficking.

4. The Magistrate before imposing a sentence of imprisonment weighed the circumstances of the case with great care. The Appellant was convicted of a similar offence in October 1971 when he was fined $400. The Appellant is aged 18 and is just about to leave Hong Kong for a university in England. To impose a prison sentence at this particular time will mean that he will have to wait for a whole year before he can be sure of a place in a university.

5. The public must be protected and I see nothing wrong in the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for an offence like the present. However the offender must also be considered. Though the magistrate considered and rejected the imposition of a suspended sentence. I thought it right and in the interests of the public as well as of the Appellant himself to allow the appeal to the extent of passing a suspended sentence in place of the present sentence. An undertaking was given at the time that the Appellant would leave Hong Kong for Europe on July 30th that is two days after the hearing of the appeal.

6. There is evidence that the Appellant has a strong personality. The effect of a suspended sentence will be to remove him from his acquaintances in Hong Kong who will no longer be under his influence. His parents live in Hong Kong and it is reasonable to suppose that he will return here for holidays. The suspended sentence will remain in force for two years and will come into effect if he is foolish enough to commit an offence in Hong Kong when he returns here.

Representation:

Charles Ching (Johnson, Stokes & Master) for Appellant

Lucas, Ag. D.D.P.P. for Respondent