HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

CHOI SAI-LOK v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
7015-EN-1975-09-27

CHOI SAI-LOK v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000774/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 774 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:
CHOI Sai-lokAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 27th September, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. On February 17th, 1975, the appellant was found guilty of being in possession of dangerous drugs and placed on probation for eighteen months.

2. On August 15th, 1975, the appellant was again found guilty of a similar offence and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. At the same time the magistrate ordered the discharge of the Probation Order and sentenced the appellant to a further term of nine months' imprisonment. The appellant therefore faces a total sentence of eighteen months. The amount of drugs found in the appellant's possession on each occasion was very small.

3. At the trial in August, i.e. on the second occasion, the appellant asked to be imprisoned and not to be sent to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

4. In his statement of findings the magistrate mentions this and states that he advised the appellant to apply for a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order: which the appellant refused to do.

5. From the statement of findings, it would seem that because the appellant refused to consider a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Order the two sentences were ordered to run consecutively.

6. I do not think that this is a right approach and further I think that eighteen months for these two offences is too long a period.

7. In the event, I will allow the appeal against sentences to the extent that the two sentences of nine months shall run concurrently and not consecutively.

(Geoffrey Briggs)
Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Sharwood, c.c. for Respondent/Crown