HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2002

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TAM KUNG

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
35840-EN-2002-08-14

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TAM KUNG

HTML content

HCMA000648/2002

HCMA648/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.648 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 1197 OF 2002)

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

BETWEEN
HKSARRespondent
AND
CHEUNG TAM KUNGAppellant

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

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 August 2002

Date of Judgment: 14 August 2002

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

J U D G M E N T

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

 

1. On of 14 June 2002, this appellant was sent to a drug addiction treatment centre in respect an offence of possession of a syringe which contained a mixture containing heroin. The magistrate called for a drug addiction treatment suitability report as she was required to. That report indicated that he was suitable for treatment there, and the magistrate took the view that was the right course to take.

2. The particular feature in this case is that the appellant is 65 years old, and that he also has a number of previous convictions for drug offences. It might be said that no useful purpose can be served in imposing such a sentence. His case has been looked at very carefully by those who deal with these matters and the recommendation was unequivocal. In all the circumstances, I do not think that this sentence can be faulted. Accordingly, the appeal be dismissed.

(Ian Carlson)
Deputy High Court Judge

Representation:

Mr Paul K. Madigan, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Appellant in person