Chung Ching Kwai v. The Queen
|
CACC000648/1968 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 648 of 1968 -----------------
Coram: Huggins J. Date of Judgment: 25 November 1968 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins J. 1. The appellant was charged on 24th February, 1968 with smoking dangerous drugs and was sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment. Upon a review he was then sentenced to a conditional discharge. He was subsequently charged on 10th October with another offence of smoking dangerous drugs and was convicted on his own confession. For this second offence he was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment and the learned magistrate proceeded to pass a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment consecutive upon that in respect of the February offence. The appellant has filed a notice of appeal against the sentence "on a certain conviction" and the notice then proceeds to refer to both the sentence in respect of the February offence and the sentence in respect of the October offence. In my view this is technically incorrect. The sentences are separate and distinct and an appeal should be lodged against each of the sentences if so desired. However, I am on this occasion prepared to deal with the case on the basis that the appellant appeals against both sentences. 2. This is by no means the first occasion on which the appellant has been convicted under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Prior to February he had been convicted on 9 previous occasions. Despite that the learned magistrate who tried the case at the beginning of the year took a lenient view and gave the appellant the opportunity to go straight. He failed to do so and the same learned magistrate took the view that if a bond is to mean anything at all it should be enforced. With that I entirely agree. The appellant knew when the first sentence was reviewed in March what was going to happen if he were convicted again and despite that he committed the further offence. I consider these sentences to be entirely proper and the appeal is dismissed. 25th November 1968. Representation: Appellant in person Mr. Sharatte for the Respondent |