HKSAR v. YAN SUK YIN

CACC 151/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 346 OF 1999)

____________________________________

_______________________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1 On 13 March we allowed this applicant's appeal against conviction for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and we substituted a conviction for possession of 113 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. As for sentence, we were obliged by the terms of section 54A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance to adjourn for a report by the Commissioner of Correctional Services as to the applicant's suitability for cure in an addiction treatment centre.

2 We then described the exercise as artificial, given the history of this case. That prediction has turned out not to be quite accurate. We have been provided with a comprehensive report by Ms Li Wai Man of the Tai Lam Centre for Women. Given the brevity of time which we afforded for the preparation of the report, Ms Li is to be congratulated and thanked for her conscientiousness and for her very helpful assessment. The report shows that after we released the applicant on bail in January pending further argument in relation to the appeal, she started to abuse drugs, for there was discovered on an analysis last week, whilst on the recent remand for the purposes of this report, morphine in her urine. The Medical Officer concludes that she is a drug dependant. The report reveals that she has a very long history of drug abuse, and it is particularly unfortunate that whilst on bail after such a long time in prison for the trafficking conviction, she has so quickly resorted to abuse once more. This applicant has obviously been a drug dependant for a very long time and it is particularly noteworthy that she has never before received the benefit of the treatment which is now offered.

3 We have concluded that it is, without question, in her interest, and therefore in the public interest as well, that she receives treatment which she has not before received. Accordingly, the sentence of eleven years' imprisonment imposed for the trafficking offence is set aside, and we substitute a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order.