HKSAR v. CHO HOI KIT
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHO HOI KIT
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 10 July 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to Court of First Instance Against Sentence of Detention in DATC
- Case number
- HCMA490/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 10 July 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to Court of First Instance Against Sentence of Detention in DATC
- Case number
- HCMA490/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The DATC order was unlawful in principle for a person already serving imprisonment and must be set aside; the appropriate substitute sentence is six months imprisonment (six months for possession with three months concurrent for the apparatus charge), to run consecutively to the prison sentence already being served.
Court disposition
Order for detention in a DATC set aside and replaced by imprisonment.
Orders
- Set aside order for detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre (DATC).
- Impose 6 months imprisonment in total: 6 months on the possession charge and 3 months concurrent on the apparatus charge.
- Order the 6 months imprisonment to run consecutively to the sentence of imprisonment the appellant was then serving.
02
Material facts
Parties
Appellant
Appellant Counsel: Miss Wong Sze-wing, Barbara (Legal Aid Department)Respondent
Respondent Counsel: Mr Cheung Wai-sun, Patrick; Miss Agnes Chan, SGC (Department of Justice)Amounts and remedies
- Sentence Imprisonment Months: 6
- Apparatus Concurrent Months: 3
- Methamphetamine Hydrochloride Total Grams: 0.46
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to Court of First Instance Against Sentence of Detention in DATC
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether it is lawful or proper to order detention in a DATC for a person who is currently serving a term of imprisonment
- 02
What sentence should replace a DATC order that is inappropriate because the offender is already imprisoned
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant was serving a prison sentence and it is wrong in principle to order detention in a DATC of a person currently serving imprisonment; the appellant asked that the DATC order be set aside and imprisonment imposed instead.
- Respondent
- The prosecution conceded that ordering detention in a DATC for a person currently serving imprisonment is wrong in principle and did not oppose substituting an imprisonment sentence; noted the magistrate's stated starting points and reductions for plea.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
AG v To Ka-shing [1987] HKLR 69 (Court of Appeal)
It is wrong in principle to order detention in a DATC of a person currently serving a term of imprisonment.
- 02
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and Magistrate's Reasons for Sentence
Offences under Dangerous Drugs Ordinance attract sentencing by reference to starting points and reduction for guilty plea; concurrent and consecutive terms may be applied.
- 03
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 ss.8(1)(a),(2) and 36(1),(2)
Statutory provisions creating offences of possession of dangerous drugs and possession of apparatus for inhalation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The DATC order was unlawful in principle for a person already serving imprisonment and must be set aside; the appropriate substitute sentence is six months imprisonment (six months for possession with three months concurrent for the apparatus charge), to run consecutively to the prison sentence already being served.
Obiter and limits
- Magistrate would have adopted a 9-month starting point for possession reduced to 6 months for guilty plea and a 4-month starting point for the apparatus charge reduced to 3 months concurrent.
- Quantities of drugs were small: items described included 0.09 grams of crystalline material containing methamphetamine hydrochloride and 0.39 grams of crystalline solid containing 0.37 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
- Mitigation was limited to guilty pleas; the appellant had a string of previous convictions.
Court disposition
Order for detention in a DATC set aside and replaced by imprisonment.
- Set aside order for detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre (DATC).
- Impose 6 months imprisonment in total: 6 months on the possession charge and 3 months concurrent on the apparatus charge.
- Order the 6 months imprisonment to run consecutively to the sentence of imprisonment the appellant was then serving.
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 10 July 2007
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· 10 July 2007
bjbj __ Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V. Bokhary in Court Date of Hearing: 10 July 2007 Date of Judgment: 10 July 2007 ___
J U D G M E N T ___ The Appellant appeals against the sentence of detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre (
DATC ) passed on him by T.S. Jenkins, Esq. in the Magistrate s Court at Shatin on two charges under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, to which he had pleaded guilty, namely possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2), and possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of dangerous drugs, contrary to sections 36(1) and (2). He appeals on the ground that he was serving a prison sentence at the time and that it is wrong in principle to order detention in a DATC of a person currently serving a term of imprisonment. The prosecution (through Mr Cheung Wai-sun who is highly experienced and always helpful) concedes that that is wrong in principle. On the decided cases, principally that of AG v To Ka-shing [1987] HKLR 69 decided by the Court of Appeal, I consider the prosecution s concession to be correct. Accordingly, I set aside the order for detention in a DATC and will, as the Appellant asks, impose a sentence of imprisonment instead. In his Reasons for Sentence, the Magistrate helpfully states what he would have done if he had not ordered detention in a DATC. He would have, he states, taken a starting point of 9 months imprisonment on the possession charge, reduced it to 6 months to reflect the Appellant s guilty plea, imposed a concurrent term of 3 months imprisonment on the apparatus charge, and order that total of 6 months imprisonment
to run consecutively to the prison sentence which the Appellant was currently serving for offences unrelated to these. Presumably, as Mr Cheung notes, the starting point adopted for the apparatus charge was 4 months imprisonment. The possession was in the dangerous drug commonly known as . In the charge, the drugs are described as: one plastic bag containing traces of methamphetamine, one plastic bag containing traces of a solid containing methamphetamine, one plastic bag containing 0.09 grammes of a crystalline solid containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (a salt of methamphetamine) and one plastic bag containing 0.39 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.37 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (a salt of methamphetamine). The only mitigation available to the Appellant are his guilty pleas, he being a man in his mid-20s with a string of previous convictions. All things considered including submissions made on behalf of the Appellant, I allow the appeal to set aside the order for detention in a DATC and impose instead a sentence of 6 months imprisonment, made up of 6 months on the possession charge and 3 months concurrent on the apparatus charge, such total sentence of 6 months imprisonment to run consecutively to the sentence of imprisonment which the Appellant is currently serving. (V. Bokhary) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Miss Wong Sze-wing, Barbara, instructed by the Legal Aid Department, for the Appellant Mr Cheung Wai-sun, Patrick, DPGC and Miss Agnes Chan, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent
PAGE -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk 1udk i$&. HCMA.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 z5:v z5:v Judiciary Hong Kong 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.