HKSAR v. CHEUNG TAM KUNG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHEUNG TAM KUNG
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 14 August 2002
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (court of First Instance Appellate Jurisdiction) / Appeal Judgment (decision)
- Case number
- HCMA648/2002
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 14 August 2002
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (court of First Instance Appellate Jurisdiction) / Appeal Judgment (decision)
- Case number
- HCMA648/2002
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The magistrate complied with the required procedure by obtaining a suitability report which unequivocally recommended treatment; given that recommendation and the careful consideration by authorities, the decision to send the appellant to a drug addiction treatment centre was within proper discretion and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Original order sending appellant to a drug addiction treatment centre upheld
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr Paul K. Madigan, SGC, Department of JusticeCheung Tam Kung
AppellantAmounts and remedies
- Appellant Age: 65
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (court of First Instance Appellate Jurisdiction) / Appeal Judgment (decision)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the magistrate correctly obtained and relied on a drug addiction treatment suitability report
- 02
Whether a drug addiction treatment order was appropriate for a 65‑year‑old repeat drug offender
- 03
Whether the magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion was erroneous
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant, appearing in person, argued that because he is 65 years old and has multiple previous drug convictions, sending him to a drug addiction treatment centre would serve no useful purpose and the sentence was inappropriate.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by Mr Paul K. Madigan SGC, relied on the drug addiction treatment suitability report which recommended treatment and submitted that the magistrate properly exercised her discretion in imposing the treatment order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Magistrates' practice and drug addiction treatment procedure as applied in this judgment
Magistrate must obtain a drug addiction treatment suitability report when considering a treatment order
- 02
This High Court judgment (HCMA648/2002) and sentencing discretion principles
Court should give weight to an unequivocal suitability report and recommendations of those who handle treatment placements
- 03
Established appellate review principles as applied in this judgment
Sentencing discretion of magistrate will not be disturbed absent error or misdirection
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The magistrate complied with the required procedure by obtaining a suitability report which unequivocally recommended treatment; given that recommendation and the careful consideration by authorities, the decision to send the appellant to a drug addiction treatment centre was within proper discretion and the appeal must be dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Although the appellant is 65 and has prior drug convictions, that fact alone does not render a treatment order futile
- Cases involving the repeated offenders must still be considered on the basis of professional recommendations and the statutory framework for treatment orders
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Original order sending appellant to a drug addiction treatment centre upheld
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 14 August 2002
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 14 August 2002
bjbj HCMA648/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.648 OF 2002 (ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 1197 OF 2002) ------------------------
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and CHEUNG TAM KUNG Appellant ------------------------ Before : Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Court Date of Hearing : 14 August 2002 Date of Judgment : 14 August 2002 -----------------------
J U D G M E N T ------------------------
AUTONUMOUT On 14 June 2002, this appellant was sent to a drug addiction treatment centre in respect of an offence of possession of a syringe which contained a mixture containing heroin. The magistrate called for a drug addiction treatment suitability report as she was required to. That report indicated that he was suitable for treatment there, and the magistrate took the view that was the right course to take.
AUTONUMOUT The particular feature in this case is that the appellant is 65 years old, and that he also has a number of previous convictions for drug offences. It might be said that no useful purpose can be served in imposing such a sentence. His case has been looked at very carefully by those who deal with these matters and the recommendation was unequivocal. In all the circumstances, I do not think that this sentence can be faulted. Accordingly, the appeal be dismissed. (Ian Carlson) Deputy High Court Judge Mr Paul K. Madigan, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent The Appellant in person -
PAGE - \!p# "Ba$ "@AB HHzbr Zk_UR %i?l ZorB r7Fv, 2wx^ %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l %i?l r7Fv r7Fv r7Fv r7Fv r7Fv r7Fv Zk_U Zk_U Zk_U Zk_U Zk_U Zk_U Zk_U Zk_U Zk_U Zk_U Zk_U & 6" HCMA953/2001 Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 ~`JbG ~`JbG HCMA953/2001 Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.