HKSAR v. LAM HON KWONG

HCMA 291/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM NKCC 386/2001)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Introduction

1. The appellant was convicted on his own plea of one charge of possession of dangerous drug, contrary to sections 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134. He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on 15 February this year at North Kowloon Magistracy. He now appeals against sentence.

Admitted facts

2. The admitted facts disclosed that during a routine search of the appellant, whilst he was an inmate of the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, a white packet containing the heroin was found from his excrement. The appellant admitted that he had swallowed the heroin when he was stopped by the police prior to his detention.

Reasons for sentence

3. The learned Magistrate in his Statement of Reasons for Sentence referred to these admitted facts. At the time he adjourned for a DATC report, but the appellant, having a long history of drug addiction, was not recommended for admission there.

4. In passing sentence, the learned Magistrate had taken into account the authority of Attorney General v. Au Kwok-chai AR 22/1995 where the Court of Appeal said that smuggling of drugs into prison was a serious offence calling for a deterrent sentence.

5. The learned Magistrate had taken into account the appellant's plea of guilty, the contents of the DATC report, and the appellant's mitigation. The appellant told the learned Magistrate that he did not intend to smuggle the drugs into prison. However, the appellant on his admission to the Reception Centre did not tell the Correctional Services Department staff that he had swallowed the drugs prior to his detention.

6. The appellant was not represented before me. He said that as he thought he had already expelled the dangerous drugs prior to the admission to Lai Chi Kok Centre, he did not say anything to the Correctional Services upon admission. He asked me to consider his plea and the circumstances of his case to reduce his sentence. He said that the 18 months starting point was too severe.

Judgment

7. All these matters had been considered by the learned Magistrate at the time. I cannot fault his reasoning. An 18-month starting point is proper in this case and giving the appellant full credit for his plea, he was given a 12-month imprisonment sentence. I see nothing wrong with that. The appeal is dismissed.