Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Drug addiction treatment orders

Legal area

Court

16 May 2007

HKSAR v. LIN SHING CHUN, MICHAEL

Citation

HKSAR v. LIN SHING CHUN, MICHAEL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA308/2007

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate lawfully applied sentencing principles: he relied on authority precluding a concurrent treatment order, selected an appropriate starting point, applied a reduction for the guilty plea, and reasonably ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence already being served; the resulting aggregate sentence was not excessive.
19 Feb 2004

HKSAR v. CHUNG TSAN KUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG TSAN KUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1267/2003

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate did not misapply sentencing discretion: given the appellant's drug dependence, multiple prior convictions and prior unsuccessful treatments, ordering placement at a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre was a proper rehabilitative measure and not an abuse of discretion.
16 May 1997

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FONG MAN HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FONG MAN HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/1997

The Court held the trial judge misdirected himself in imposing DATC orders in these cases and that such orders were manifestly inadequate given the circumstances; it set aside the DATC order for Choi and substituted imprisonment (3 years 6 months) while reserving decision on Fong pending a report on his progress in the DATC, recognizing DATC disposal as exceptional.
1 Jun 1994

TAM Shing-li v. R.

Citation

TAM Shing-li v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC10/1994

The Court allowed the appeal in part, holding the sentencing judge should have applied the sentencing practice prevailing when the offence was committed (January 1992) despite the June 1992 amendment; having regard to the substantial quantity and antecedents the sentence should be at the top of the 1992 scale, and the two year sentence was reduced to one year imprisonment.
12 Dec 1973

LI TUNG HING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LI TUNG HING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC734/1973

Because the probation and prison reports established that the appellant's offending was attributable to drug addiction and a treatment centre was an appropriate and available option, the appellate court was justified in quashing the sentences of imprisonment and ordering detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre as a substitute to better serve rehabilitation and public protection.
20 Nov 1969

CHOW KA SHUN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHOW KA SHUN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC787/1969

The conviction was upheld because the magistrate accepted credible police evidence of the appellant handing over the packet and forensic analysis confirmed the contents; therefore there was ample evidence to support the conviction and the order to send the 16‑year‑old drug addict to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre was proper.
6 Mar 1969

CHAN SHUI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN SHUI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC7/1969

The court held that a charge alleging possession of traces of a dangerous drug is competent in Hong Kong and that the original sentence of 4 months was legally inadequate given the appellant's prior convictions and the objective of providing a custodial term likely to permit treatment; the appeal was allowed and sentence substituted so as to permit immediate release with a warning that further conviction could lead to detention and treatment under s.4 of the 1968 Ordinance.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LIN SHING CHUN, MICHAEL

HKSAR v. CHUNG TSAN KUEN

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FONG MAN HUNG AND ANOTHER

TAM Shing-li v. R.

LI TUNG HING v. THE QUEEN

CHOW KA SHUN v. THE QUEEN

CHAN SHUI v. THE QUEEN