HKSAR v. SO CHI LUNG

HKSAR v. SO CHI LUNG

The DATC order was quashed because the court had no jurisdiction in principle to impose a rehabilitative DATC order to take effect while the appellant was serving an existing term of imprisonment; the appropriate sentence for possession of two tablets containing 0.02 grams of Midazolam was fixed at two months...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. SO CHI LUNG
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: So Chi Lung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 September 2004
Case Number
HCMA888/2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Against Sentence to Court of First Instance (on Appeal From FLCC 1892 of 2004)
Outcome
DATC order quashed; sentence substituted with two months imprisonment for possession of Midazolam, to run consecutively to four months imprisonment for theft.
Legal Topics
Drug Addiction Treatment Centre (datc) Orders, Concurrency and Totality of Sentences, Jurisdiction to Defer Rehabilitative Orders, Interpretation of Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Ordinance S.6 a
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Drug Offences Sentencing Administrative Law Drug Addiction Treatment Centre (datc) Orders Concurrency and Totality of Sentences Jurisdiction to Defer Rehabilitative Orders Interpretation of Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Ordinance S.6 a

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

So Chi Lung

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Against Sentence to Court of First Instance (on Appeal From FLCC 1892 of 2004)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a DATC order can be made to take effect while the offender is already serving a term of imprisonment
  2. 2 Whether the DATC order should be quashed and what sentence should be imposed for possession of a small quantity of Midazolam
  3. 3 Whether sentences of imprisonment and a rehabilitative DATC order can run concurrently

Ratio Decidendi

The DATC order was quashed because the court had no jurisdiction in principle to impose a rehabilitative DATC order to take effect while the appellant was serving an existing term of imprisonment; the appropriate sentence for possession of two tablets containing 0.02 grams of Midazolam was fixed at two months imprisonment, to run consecutively to the four months imprisonment for theft.

Court Disposition

DATC order quashed; sentence substituted with two months imprisonment for possession of Midazolam, to run consecutively to four months imprisonment for theft.

Orders

  • Appellant sentenced to two months imprisonment for possession of Midazolam, to run consecutively to four months imprisonment for theft.