Tse Chung and Another v. The Queen

CACC000609/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 609 OF 1968

(Central Magistracy Case No.1094/68)

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

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

Coram: Rigby, S.P.J.

Date of Judgment: 15 November 1968

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellants were caught red-handed in circumstances which clearly showed that they had been smoking heroin. Both of them were found in possession of pieces of tinfoil which bore traces of heroin upon them. The first appellant pleaded guilty when the case was tried; the second appellant pleaded not guilty and was convicted of the offence charged. Both appellants now appeal against sentence. The sentence imposed upon each of them was one of 12 months' imprisonment.

2. Both appellants have lengthy previous records which clearly indicate that they are drug addicts. The learned magistrate imposed upon them sentences of imprisonment of 12 months each with the two-fold purpose that the length of sentence might afford a greater opportunity for rehabilitation and treatment and that such sentences, which were admittedly in excess of those previously imposed upon them for drug offences, might serve to impress upon them the fact that further and continued repetition of such offences must necessarily and inevitably result in longer sentences. The normal period of rehabilitation, as I understand it, is between 6 and 9 months; that is the maximum period required. Whilst I am appreciative of the fact that under normal circumstances a continued repetition by an offender of criminal offences must necessarily and inevitably result in longer sentences being imposed upon them for the simple reason that it is apparent that shorter sentences have proved to be of no deterrent effect, I have some doubt whether a similar standard of reasoning can properly be applied in the case of persons who are confirmed drug addicts. The sentences of 12 months' imprisonment are out of line with the normal standard of sentences imposed upon drug addicts - even though they may have a long line of previous convictions - where they are caught in circumstances which clearly indicate that they have themselves been smoking dangerous drugs.

3. In all the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the sentences of 12 months' imprisonment are unduly severe, and the appeal will accordingly be allowed to the extent that the sentence in respect of each appellant will be reduced from 12 to 9 months.

Representation:

Appellants in person.

Winter, C.C. for Crown/Respt.

(Judgment delivered)