CHUNG WING LIN v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000649/1968
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 649 OF 1968
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| CHUNG WING LIN | Appellant | |
| AND | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 5 December 1968
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Huggins, J:
1. The appellant appeals against a sentence of 5 months' imprisonment imposed by the learned magistrate for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. The quantity of drugs involved was the usual 0.1 of a gramme of diacetylmorphine hydrochloride. The appellant was last sentenced on 13th June this year and was given a similar sentence of 5 months' imprisonment.
2. In my view a sentence of 5 months' imprisonment in this type of case serves no useful purpose whatsoever. It is too short to allow of any proper form of treatment and it is certainly no deterrent. In these circumstances I adjourned the case for a social welfare report, which is now before me. The appellant is aged 52 years. He has no fixed abode but he does appear to be qualified as a plumber, although he has not always been able to get plumbing work and has sometimes had to work as a hawker. He is obviously a drug addict but a previous term of imprisonment spent at the Tai Lam Treatment Centre was ineffective: he has many previous convictions for drug offences. On two occasions he was conditionally discharged (or so I assume from the wording of the record) but he committed further offences on both occasions within a matter of days. It is obviously a waste of time to discharge him conditionally on this occasion.
3. I see that the longest sentence imposed on the appellant has been one of 7 months' imprisonment. I have, therefore, considered very carefully whether the proper course in this case was not to increase the present sentence so that there would be adequate time for proper treatment. However, the appellant has already served nearly two months of the sentence which was imposed for this offence and I think it might be unjust now to pass a sentence which would allow of adequate time. While, therefore, I do not think that 5 months' imprisonment was the proper sentence, I think I ought to dismiss this appeal.
5th December, 1968.
Representation:
Appellant in person
Mr. Sharatte for the Respondent