Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Drug addiction treatment centre

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN CHEE KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHEE KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC390/2004

The judge erred by failing to follow the established multi-step sentencing approach (identify starting point for simple possession, quantify any enhancement for latent risk, then adjust for mitigation). Applying that approach, the proper starting point was 18 months, the appropriate enhancement for the latent risk was 9 months (total 27 months) and after a one-third plea discount the sentence is 18 months; accordingly the original 28 month sentence was manifestly excessive and is quashed and substituted with 18 months imprisonment.
23 Jun 2004

HKSAR v. MAN HON SUM

Citation

HKSAR v. MAN HON SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA545/2004

The appeal was allowed in part: the court substituted sentences totaling four months imprisonment by ordering four weeks for the theft (starting point six weeks less one-third for guilty plea), one month for possession of dangerous drugs and two months for failure to surrender, to be served consecutively and consecutively to the sentence the appellant was already serving; the magistrate's DATC sequencing was quashed as incorrect in principle.
26 Jun 1997

R v. CHAN CHUN FAI

Citation

R v. CHAN CHUN FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC87/1997

The Court affirmed the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion: the judge considered the reports, applied an appropriate discount for plea and cooperation, reasonably declined a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order given the Applicant's history and reports, and no material was presented to justify reducing the two-year sentence.
25 Apr 1997

R. v. MA KWAI MING

Citation

R. v. MA KWAI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC597/1996

The Court held the sentencing judge correctly applied the Lau Tak-ming guideline to the quantity involved, properly considered relevant reports and mitigating factors (clear record and early guilty plea), and therefore there was no basis to interfere with the sentence of 3 years and 4 months.
12 Jan 1988

LEUNG KAM KWONG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEUNG KAM KWONG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1041/1987

Detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre is a custodial sentence; imposing such a custodial order for a single-punch common assault causing only superficial abrasions was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive, therefore the sentence was quashed and substituted to effect immediate release (time served).
22 Mar 1982

HUI NAM-SING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HUI NAM-SING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC149/1982

Conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking was unsafe because the record indicated the magistrate knew of the appellant's previous convictions and had read a D.A.T.C. report before making any adjudication; accordingly the conviction was set aside and substituted with a lesser offence under s.8(1)(a), and sentence was rethought to a probation order with treatment conditions given the appellant's suitability for treatment and family circumstances.
27 Sept 1975

CHOI SAI-LOK v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHOI SAI-LOK v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC774/1975

Refusal by the appellant to accept a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order did not justify ordering two nine-month sentences to run consecutively; given the small quantities involved, the appropriate disposition was to order the two nine-month sentences to run concurrently, reducing the effective total sentence to nine months.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHAN CHEE KEUNG

HKSAR v. MAN HON SUM

R v. CHAN CHUN FAI

R. v. MA KWAI MING

LEUNG KAM KWONG v. THE QUEEN

HUI NAM-SING v. THE QUEEN

CHOI SAI-LOK v. THE QUEEN