THE QUEEN v. SO WAH KONG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Magistracy Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 1985

__________

BETWEEN

___________

_________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_________________________

1. The appellant appealed against his conviction for 'Possession of Dangerous Drugs For The Purpose Of Unlawful Trafficking therein' and against his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, which Was ordered to run consecutively to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Order which he was then serving.

2. The appellant conducted his own appeal against conviction, but could not produce any good grounds why the appeal against conviction should be allowed, and I accordingly dismissed this appeal against conviction, which was amply justified on the evidence.

3. Mr. James Lee, appeared for the appellant in his, appeal against sentence and sought to persuade me that the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment' which was ordered to run consecutively to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Order, was excessive and wrong in principle.

4. I allowed the appeal on the basis that it was wrong in principle to order a prison sentence to run consecutively to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Order. The situation is governed by S. 6A of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Ordinance. There is also direct authority on this matter in the judgment of Mr. Justice O'Connor in R. v. Kwong Wing Fat Magistracy Appeal No. 569 of 35 delivered on the 12th of August 1985.

5. I therefore ordered that the prison sentence should not be ordered to run consecutively or concurrently With the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Order.

6. So far as the length of sentence was concerned, Mr. Lee stressed that on the record there was an absence of any desire to make any gain from the transaction. The appellant's defence had been that he bought in bulk for his own consumption because it was cheaper, but in cross-examination he admitted that he shared the drugs by giving a small quantity to a colleague.

7. This legislation is aimed at any dealing in dangerous drugs, and it matters not that no profit is intended. Anybody who takes part in the transfer of drugs deserves heavy punishment. Having regard to the tarriff suggested in Chan Chi Ming (1979) H. K. L. R. p. 491, I considered that 18 months' imprisonment could certainly not be described as manifestly excessive. Indeed, it appeared to me that the Magistrate had giver sufficient consideration for the mitigating features in this case. I thus made no order reducing the term of imprisonment. which remained at 18 months' imprisonment.