LAU HING KUEN v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000710/1972
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 1972
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| LAU HING KUEN | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 27th November, 1972.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. Under the Magistrates Ordinance persons convicted of summary offences have a right of appeal to this Court. It is a right which is all too often abused and it is a matter of regret to some of us who sit in this Court that we have no power to deal effectively with frivolous appeals. This Appellant appeals against sentences of nine months' imprisonment concurrent on charges of possession of an instrument fit for the purpose of injecting dangerous drugs and unlawful possession of dangerous drugs.
2. The Appellant has indicated no matter of mitigation whatsoever. What he has said to me is that before the magistrate he admitted possession of the instrument but denied possession of the drugs and that he never said he was guilty of possession of dangerous drugs. He has now had to confess that that is entirely false. The learned magistrate recorded, as he is required to do, the exact words used by the Appellant (in translation) and the Appellant said "Guilty". There was no suggestion that the Appellant was denying possession of the drugs. I am fully satisfied that this magistrate would never have so recorded the plea of the Appellant if there had been the least possible doubt about his admission.
3. Before the magistrate the Appellant said that he had received treatment at Shek Kwu Chau and had cut off his addiction. The learned magistrate went to the trouble of obtaining a report from a Probation Officer, and to the Probation Officer the Appellant admitted that he spent $10 a day on narcoties. So much for his having cut off his addiction! The Probation Officer said that the Appellant appears to be without remorse and I can endorse that opinion.
4. These were clearly correct sentences and the appeal is dismissed.
27th November, 1972.
Representation: