HKSAR v. LIU YUK WAH

HCMA 1181/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1181 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 8084/1994)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Appellant was convicted on his own plea in the Magistracy of one count of Possession of a Dangerous Drug. The drug was 0.46 gramme of a mixture containing 0.11 gramme of heroin hydrochloride. The drug was contained in two plastic straws which were found in the Appellant's trouser pocket.

2. The arrest in fact happened in 1994 and the Appellant was granted bail but did not appear in court on the next date. He now advises the court, through his grounds of appeal, that the reason he did not appear was because he was receiving drug addiction treatment in Mainland China from 1994 until 2000.

3. The Magistrate, as he was required to do, called for a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report prior to sentencing. He had been informed that the Appellant had 16 previous convictions; 11 of which related to dangerous drugs. The last offence was in 1994.

4. The report from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre reported that the Appellant was still drug dependent and that he was considered a suitable person for admission to the Centre. The Magistrate took note of the mitigation put forward by the Appellant that he had not taken drug for 5 or 6 years and that he had rid himself of the habit in China. He noted that the Appellant asked to go to prison instead of Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

5. The Magistrate considered that what the Appellant told him in court was inconsistent with the findings of the medical officer and noted in particular that the last dosage of heroin that the Appellant consumed had been said to be in September 2000. Accordingly the Magistrate decided that the proper order to make was a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order.

6. Today the Appellant says that he has already quit the drug habit and he did so for the sake of his family and children, a family that he acquired during his period in China. He asked for a reduction of sentence and said he did not want to be close to addicts.

7. Having considered the fact of the case and the previous history of the Appellant, I am satisfied that the Magistrate was correct in making the order that he did and that it was based on proper grounds.

8. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.