THE QUEEN v. LI CHEUK

BETWEEN:-

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Preliminary

1. This was an appeal against conviction and sentence in respect of charges of possession of dangerous drugs and possession of an instrument fit and intended for injection of dangerous drugs.

Conviction

2. The appellant denied that he had beer found in a refuse room with a syringe and 0.24 of a gramme heroin. I was however quite satisfied that the magistrate had every reason to accept the prosecution evidence that the appellant was so found and that there was no grounds for allowing appeal against the conviction.

Sentence

3. The magistrate called for drug addiction treatment centre report, but that indicated that as he had already been to the centre on three occasions but had immediately relapsed, there was no point in sending him back. The appellant has a long and sad record of petty crime and undoubtedly is drug dependant. The magistrate had imposed sentences of 12 months and 3 months on the two charges to be concurrent and on the facts before him that was unquestionably a perfectly proper sentence. However, when the appellant appeared before me he had in court his mother-in-law and his five-year old daughter. While unfortunately it is probably hoping for too much I decided to reduce that sentence to one of 6 months and 3 months, concurrent, in the hope, vain though it might be, that the appellant would do as he promised and make a real effort to look after his family.