Lau Hing Kuen v. The Queen
|
CACC000711/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 711 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 27th November, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. When dealing with the last case I had not appreciated that this same Appellant was appealing also against a sentence of six months' imprisonment imposed in respect of a subsequent offence. I am happy to find that there is no reason to think that I came to a wrong decision in respect of the last appeal. 2. The Appellant when in the South Kowloon Magistracy for the purposes of his trial for the previous offences was searched and found to have a packet of dangerous drugs in his possession. Upon arraignment the Appellant denied this offence and said that the drugs had been planted on him by a fellow prisoner. On the adjourned date fixed for the trial the Appellant is recorded as having pleaded guilty, but unfortunately the learned magistrate did not comply with s.19 of the Magistrates Ordinance and record as nearly as possible the precise words used by the Appellant. This is a matter to which I have had to refer repeatedly on appeals from magistrates and it is particularly unfortunate that there has been no compliance with the section in a case like this where the plea of Guilty is, in effect, a reversal of a previous plea of Not guilty. However, the Appellant has admitted before me that the drugs were in his possession and it is not necessary to say more about this matter. 3. The learned magistrate naturally passed a sentence which would take effect consecutively with the previous sentences imposed. The Appellant has asked that they should run concurrently. There is no ground whatever for making an order in those terms. This was a separate and distinct offence and must be separately and distinctly punished. It may not be quite so serious an offence as having dangerous drugs within the precincts of one of Her Majesty's prisons but it is more serious than the ordinary case of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. I have considered the fact that the Appellant will in fact have to serve a total of fifteen months' imprisonment, but having regard to the offences committed I cannot say that that is in any way excessive. 4. This appeal, also, must be dismissed. 27th November, 1972. Representation: |