WONG LIM v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000684/1968
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 684 OF 1968
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| WONG LIM | Appellant | |
| AND | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 12 December 1968
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Huggins, J:
1. This appellant was convicted on his own confession of unlawful possession of 0.1 gramme of diacetylmorphine hydrochloride. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and appeals against that sentence.
2. The appellant has been convicted on no less than 19 previous occasions for offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. These offences started in 1949 and have continued without a break except for a period between 1950 and 1955.
3. The story told to me by the appellant is that his family, whom he has not seen for twenty years, has recently arrived in Macau. That of itself is no ground for interfering with this sentence. This was something which he told the learned magistrate. However, it did appear to he from his record that he had been punished on every occasion that he had been before the court under this Ordinance. I could see little prospect of a sentence of six months' imprisonment's having any curative effect upon him in view of this long string of previous convictions: he has on two occasions been in prison for twelve months. In these circumstances I thought it desirable that I should have a Social Welfare report.
4. The appellant has been quite unable to supply any satisfactory corroboration of his story that his family has recently arrived in Macau and it unfortunately appears that he has no real inclination to rid himself of his addiction. One thing which appears from the report may be a warning to others: the appellant is said to have started taking opium at the age 16 or 17 because it was then "high fashion" to do that. He now says he is unable to do without drugs.
5. I have tried to persuade myself that it would be a proper course to discharge the appellant conditionally but I cannot see any prospect of his being able to rid himself of the drug habit without assistance and the inevitable result would be that he would shortly be in breach of any recongnizance which was taken from him. Reluctantly I find myself with no alternative but to dismiss this appeal.
12th December, 1968.
Representation:
Appellant in person
Mr. Evans for the Respondent