THE QUEEN v. LI WAI KIT

__________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Silke, J.A.:

1. On 13th. March, we dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against her conviction but adjourned the matter of sentence so that we could procure a report from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre in relation to her.

2. The sentence she received is one of 3½ years which is by no means outside the normal tariff imposed for the possession of the mixture which she was convicted of possessing on 11th July 1985.

3. In imposing that sentence, the trial judge gave her credit for her clear record.  We have now had the benefit of considering a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report, something not before the trial judge.  It seems clear that she has been an addict for a number of years and at one point, when she went outside Hong Kong to Scotland, did resile from her drug taking habits.  She had been married there but is now separated. She has one child aged 5.

4. In 1984 she returned to Hong Kong and unfortunately mixed with company which assisted her in going back to this pernicious habit. She worked as a dance hostess.

5. To the Intake Officer, she appeared both immature and feeble-minded - I think ''feeble-minded" in the sense that she is somewhat lacking an intelligence not as mentally retarded. The Intake Officer felt she was in need of direct guidance and was suitable for admission to a drug addiction treatment centre.

6. We intend here to take a somewhat unusual course.  Where there is a conviction of being in possession of drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order does not normally follow and the order which we are about to make is not to be taken as a precedent.

7. In the light of the personal history of this applicant as indicated in the Intake Officer's report and the circumstances of the offence we think that the interest of justice and society would be served if we made such an Order.

8. The application far leave to appeal will be granted and the appeal allowed.  The sentence of 3½ years quashed and substituted therefor is a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Order