THE QUEEN v. LI PING PIN

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

Mayo JA:

1. The appellant appeals against the sentences of 9 months' imprisonment imposed upon him for smoking dangerous drugs. He pleaded guilty to this offence.

2. The learned magistrate Mr Day was mindful of the small quantity of dangerous drugs involved in this case and of the approach adopted by the courts to offences of this nature.

3. In particular in his Reasons for Sentence he cited the passage from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R. v. CHUI Hung Wong (unreported, being CA 39/93) where the court expressed the view that sentences for possession of small quantities of dangerous drugs needed to be increased to reflect the legislative intent in this connection. Mr Day referred to the appellant's two previous convictions for offences of this nature and the fact that the report he had received from the drug addiction treatment centre did not recommend that he should receive treatment at the centre.

4. He did however take cognisance of the appellant's guilty plea and gave him credit for this.

5. Mr Stirling has in a most eloquent submission urged on his behalf the very small quantity of dangerous drugs involved in this case and the previous good character of the appellant subject to the said convictions for possession of small quantities of dangerous drugs.

6. All of these matters were as I have said weighed and considered by the learned magistrate.

7. He appears however to have balanced these factors against the fact that there is an increasing number of cases of this type coming before the courts and this being the case he was unable to treat the case leniently.

8. While the sentence was at the higher end of the relevant guidelines I do not think that I can properly conclude that the sentence was either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.