Lai Kin Bun v. The Queen
|
CACC000598/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 598 OF 1975 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 7th August 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. I am taking an unusual course in the present case. The Appellant was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. He had two previous convictions for similar offences and, on the face of it, it could not be said that the sentence was fairly open to question. It is, however, a special case because of the circumstances of the Appellant. He is a young man of good family. He got into bad company and started using drugs. He was convicted in June 1971 and placed on probation and again convicted in August 1973, when he was sent to a Drug Addiction Training Centre. Thereafter he went to Taiwan to join someone who is described as his "foster father" in his business. The Appellant appears to have settled down well and to have been an asset to the business. His parents have, indeed, acquired two flats in Taiwan with a view to qualifying the Appellant to become a permanent resident there. Then he returned to Hong Kong on holiday, Picked up with his old associates and started taking drugs once more. He is not a drug dependant. 2. The magistrate thought that the unfavourable reports of the Appellant's character called for a custodial sentence for this offence and said he would have imposed a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment but for the fact that the Appellant pleaded Guilty. I do not suppose that the learned magistrate was optimistic of the chances of reformation so long as the Appellant remained in Hong Kong, and as the Appellant was still a citizen of Hong Kong there was no way of forcing him to leave. I have, however, seen his father and his brother, both of whom are anxious to get him back to Taiwan, where he will not be subjected to the same temptation. They have assured me that they will put the Appellant on a flight to Taiwan within a week if he is free to go. The Appellant himself says he wishes to go. 3. Not everyone who has the financial resources to go abroad can expect to escape the consequences of his crimes, but, with some hesitation, I have decided to give the Appellant one last chance. If he offends again he will be severely punished. 4. The appeal is allowed and I substitute a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment suspended for three years. 7th August 1975. Representation: |