HKSAR v. FU MEI LING

HCMA000338/2001

HCMA 338/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM NKCC 893/2001)

____________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	AND
	FU MEI LING	Appellant

____________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Barnes in Court

Date of Hearing: 25 May 2001

Date of Judgment: 25 May 2001

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

Introduction

1. The appellant was convicted of one count of possession of apparatus fit and intended for the injection of dangerous drug, contrary to sections 36(1) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134. She pleaded guilty before a Magistrate in North Kowloon Magistracy. On 16 February this year, she was sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment.

Admitted facts

2. The facts disclosed that the appellant was found in a semi-conscious state inside a cubicle of a public toilet in Tai Hang Tung No.2 Playground. The appellant was holding a syringe, which was found to contain traces of heroin. The learned Magistrate adjourned the sentence pending DATC report. DATC was recommended for the appellant.

Reasons for sentence

3. The learned Magistrate in his Statement of Reasons for Sentence set out why he had decided to send the appellant to 4 months' imprisonment instead. He had considered the case of Law Sing MA 890/1996 and he had considered the appellant's age and that she had 26 previous convictions, 13 of which were related to dangerous drugs.

4. The appellant had served terms of imprisonment for drug offences and on two occasions was sent to a DATC. In the learned Magistrate's view, the appellant was a multiple offender for drug offences. Following the authority of Chan Pui-chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830, the learned Magistrate considered the persistence of the appellant to commit offence and failure of the previous sentences to deter was an aggravating factor in this case.

5. In passing sentence, the learned Magistrate had already taken into account the appellant's plea of guilty, the contents of the DATC report, and mitigation advanced. The learned Magistrate noted that the appellant had failed to take advantage of the benefits of a DATC on two previous occasions. He felt it was not appropriate to sentence the appellant to DATC although she was considered suitable for admission. He had adopted 6 months as a starting point and he reduced it to 4 months because of the plea.

Judgment

6. I cannot see any fault in the learned Magistrate's reasoning. I see no basis for the appeal at all. The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

	(J. Barnes)
	Deputy High Court Judge

 

Representation:

Mr Paul K Madigan, SGC for the Respondent

Appellant in person