HKSAR v. LAM YEE TAK

HCMA 899/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3364/2004)

____________

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge E Toh in Court

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1.  This is an appeal against sentence, the Appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of theft and was sentenced to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre (DATC).

2.  The facts show that the Appellant was seen in a shop and was carrying a rucksack and did steal 8 bottles of Johnson’ shower gel and 12 bottles of Walch’s washing gel, the total value of goods were about $460.  When the Appellant was arrested he had about $705 in his possession. 

3.  The learned Magistrate after having reviewed the previous convictions of the Appellant, and, I must say, it is quite considerable as the Appellant has had 17 previous convictions, some relating to drugs and some relating to theft.  The learned Magistrate then called for a DATC report and the report came back with the recommendation that the Appellant should be confined to the DATC to get rid of his drug habit.

4.  The learned Magistrate having considered the report and the background of the Appellant felt that if he is given an opportunity to rid his habit, he would have the chance to break the cycle of offending and short term imprisonments that have marred his life for a long time.  So the Magistrate in this case was more concerned with the rehabilitation of the Appellant rather than the punishment of him.

5.  The Appellant, in this appeal, has urged this court to send him to prison instead, his reason being that he would only get about 6 months’ imprisonment on something like this and he could then be released and he could then find a job.  He made allegations about the unhealthy atmosphere in the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  I had advised him to see the welfare officer if he has any complaints.  And that is not, in fact, a ground of appeal, the fact of the matter is, the learned Magistrate was not wrong in trying to rehabilitate the Appellant.

6.  The Appellant should appreciate that fact because the learned Magistrate is in fact giving him a chance.  I do not see that there are any grounds of appeal against sentence in this case because the sentence was an appropriate one in the circumstances.

7.  And so the appeal against sentence is dismissed.