Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Drug addiction treatment centre suitability

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. BALAN, EG DIONISIA LIGLIGEN

Citation

HKSAR v. BALAN, EG DIONISIA LIGLIGEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA359/2016

On the whole of the evidence the Magistrate was entitled to accept the police witnesses' account that the packet fell from the appellant's hand and was retrieved from the ground; lack of fingerprints was satisfactorily explained and did not prevent conviction; the sentence (24 months) fell within the appropriate range given the quantity, latent risk and previous convictions; therefore both appeals are dismissed.
24 Feb 2004

HKSAR v. IP KA LOK

Citation

HKSAR v. IP KA LOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA82/2004

The sentence was within the Magistrate's proper discretion; given the appellant's extensive prior convictions, lack of mitigating factors beyond a guilty plea, and the Magistrate's considered decision (including an assessment of DATC suitability), the 8‑month custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal must be dismissed.
11 Feb 2004

HKSAR v. SUBBA SIWANI

Citation

HKSAR v. SUBBA SIWANI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1205/2003

The appeal was allowed in part: the Court accepted the magistrate's sentencing approach and starting points but, applying the totality principle and giving weight to the appellant's pregnancy and childcare circumstances, ordered that the two sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively; otherwise the sentences were affirmed.
22 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. LI HOI SHAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LI HOI SHAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA667/2001

The magistrate properly exercised sentencing discretion: given the appellant's significant previous convictions, lack of drug dependence, the correct application of the three-step approach (12 months starting point, 3 month uplift for latent risk, then one-third reduction for guilty plea) the resulting 10 month imprisonment was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.
31 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. NG NGA TIK

Citation

HKSAR v. NG NGA TIK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1229/1999

Given the appellant's offending history, unsuitability for Detention Centre or DATC, and the rehabilitative purpose of Training Centre Orders under s109A(1) and the Training Centre Ordinance, the Magistrate lawfully and properly exercised sentencing discretion in imposing a Training Centre Order; appellate court will not substitute its view and the appeal is dismissed.
12 Sept 1997

HKSAR v. YIU CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. YIU CHI WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA624/1997

Sentences for possession of midazolam must be distinguished from heroin and should be set by narcotic weight; for simple possession where the narcotic weight is under 500 grammes (and in many real cases far less) the custodial sentence should not exceed six months as a general upper limit for small quantities, magistrates retaining discretion by reference to offender's character and circumstances. Applying these principles the appellant's sentence of nine months for possession of 3.8 mg midazolam was excessive and is reduced to three months' imprisonment.
13 Oct 1989

THE QUEEN v. WILD RUDOLF CHRISTIAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WILD RUDOLF CHRISTIAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1082/1989

Given the Crown's acceptance of pleas to simple possession, the quantities involved and relevant precedents, concurrent six month custodial sentences were appropriate and not excessive; there were no additional reasons to justify suspension and the magistrate did not err in sentencing or in declining DATC admission.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. BALAN, EG DIONISIA LIGLIGEN

HKSAR v. IP KA LOK

HKSAR v. SUBBA SIWANI

HKSAR v. LI HOI SHAN

HKSAR v. NG NGA TIK

HKSAR v. YIU CHI WAI

THE QUEEN v. WILD RUDOLF CHRISTIAN