YEUNG FAI v. THE QUEEN

CACC000650/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 650 of 1968

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

BETWEEN
	YEUNG FAI	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Huggins J.

Date of Judgment: 25 November 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins J:

1. The appellant appeals against the sentence of 9 months' imprisonment imposed in respect of an offence of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. He was found to have one packet containing o.17 grammes in his possession. He had four previous convictions, two of these being under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. The last conviction was in July of this year when, according to the criminal record, he was bound over in the sum of $200 for 18 months. As has been pointed out by judges in this court on numerous occasions that is not a proper record of a sentence. If a defendant is conditionally discharged under s. 36 of the Magistrates Ordinance it should be so stated (and it should also be remembered that the imposition of a conditional discharge does not necessarily have to appear on the record since a conditional discharge can be imposed without proceeding to conviction). In any event there is no question but that the sentence which I am now considering is a sentence in respect of the present offence alone and if this appellant was in fact conditionally discharged in July he is still liable to be taken back before the magistrate to be sentenced in respect of the previous offence - and it is desirable that he should be so taken back in order that the magistrate may consider what action he ought to take.

2. The appellant is not new to dangerous drugs. He has been given an opportunity to go straight but has not made good use of that opportunity. He has been able to advance no good reason why the sentence should be reduced. He has said that he is afraid that his property including the tools of his trade may be lost or stolen while he is in prison and from what he has told me I think his fear may not be unfounded. I do not consider that to be a good reason for interfering with the sentence but I have asked counsel for the Crown to make arrangements for a Social Welfare Officer to inquire about the appellant's property and to take such action as may be necessary to preserve it.

3. The appeal is dismissed.

 

25th November, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Sharatte for the Respondent