HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1983

THE QUEEN v. TAM KAM SHING

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
7449-EN-1983-07-27

THE QUEEN v. TAM KAM SHING

HTML content

CACC000909/1983

IN THE HIGH COURT 1983 No. 909

(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEENRespondent

and

TAM KAM SHINGAppellant

------

Coram: Jones J.

Date: 27th July, 1983.

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

 

1. On the 14th May 1983 the appellant was convicted at the North Kowloon Magistracy of one charge of possession of apparatus fit and intended for injection of a dangerous drug contrary to Section 36(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance Cap. 134, and was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment.

2. He appeals against his sentence.

3. The learned magistrate in his Statement of Findings agrees that the sentence should not have been imposed for he did not obtain a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Services under Section 54A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance to determine whether the appellant is suitable for admission to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

4. The learned magistrate considers that he is functus officio, and suggests that a report be obtained by the High Court and that the appeal be heard on its merits. However, it is not the function of the High Court to relieve a magistrate of his responsibilities for his omission.

5. The case is remitted to the learned magistrate pursuant to Section 119(1)(d) of the Magistrates Ordinance with a direction that he deals with the matter of sentence de novo after he has obtained a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Services. In the meantime, the sentence of 9 months' imprisonment is set aside.

(B.L. Jones)

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Mr. B.M. Ryan (Legal Department) for Crown/Respondent.