R. v. WONG SHEUNG YU

IN THE HIGH COURT

1995, No. 161
Magistracy Appeal

__________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Litton, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The appellant Wong Sheung-yu pleaded guilty before Mr Andrée-Wiltens at the Tuen Mun Magistrates Court on one charge of trafficking in cannabis and was sentenced to detention in a training centre. The sentencing took place on 13 January 1995 after the magistrate had adjourned the matter, to enable him to consider Training Centre and Drug Addition Treatment Centre reports. The magistrate had also called for a medical report. He did not, however, call for a probation report.

2. The offence occurred on 21 November 1994 at a restaurant in Yuen Long when the appellant unlawfully trafficked in 852.23 grammes of cannabis.

3. The appellant was 17 years old and was 5 months pregnant when she appeared before the magistrate in January this year. The reports which the magistrate had called for indicated that the appellant was suitable for training in a training centre - a fact which slightly surprised me, given her pregnant condition when this appeal first came before me on 20 April this year. By that time, however, the appellant had given birth: the baby was born on 10 April 1995 and was placed at the Po Leung Kuk. (Counsel tells me today that the baby is unwell and is back in hospital.) Through counsel the appellant indicated that she was anxious to take care of her baby and, upon counsel's submissions, I adjourned the matter on 20 April to today's date and called for a probation report.

4. The probation officer has carefully gone into the appellant's background. It is clear that, since the age of about 15, the appellant has led a disorderly life, and was frequently absent from home. She worked intermittently in Karaoke bars and in October 1993 was put under a supervision order pursuant to the Protection of Women and Juveniles Ordinance.

5. Whilst the appellant has a reasonably supportive family, it is clear that the home is not such as would suffice to give her a stable environment. The probation officer, having carefully studied the circumstances, does not recommend probation in her case.

6. The appellant has, with her eyes open, trafficked in cannabis for monetary gain. This was treated quite rightly by the magistrate as a serious offence. In my judgment the magistrate has not erred in sentencing the appellant the way he did.

7. If the appellant is wise she would regard the period of training in a training centre as an opportunity for reform and for the acquisition of new and useful skills. The appeal is dismissed.