HKSAR v. Ng Chi Ming

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 1114/2015 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.

1. D4 pleads guilty to a charge of inhaling a dangerous drug.

Cites 1 case

Case No.DCCC 1114/2015
Court
District Court
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 1114/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1114 OF 2015

-----------------------------------

  HKSAR  
  v.  
  NG CHI-MING (D4)  

-----------------------------------

Before: HH Judge E. Yip
Date: 16th May 2016 at 09:36 am
Present: Miss Margaret LAU, Senior Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Miss CHAN Man Ki Maggie, of M/s CMK Lawyers assigned by DLA for D4
Offence: [5] Inhaling a dangerous drug (吸服危險藥物)

--------------------------------------------

Reasons for Sentence relating to D4

--------------------------------------------

1.D4 pleads guilty to a charge of inhaling a dangerous drug.

2.In the evening on 26 August 2015, the police raided a flat in Mong Kok and found him together with others inside the living room.  Some “Ice” and paraphernalia for smoking were found. Under caution, D4 admitted buying and smoking heroin in the flat. 

3.D4 is 47 years of age.  In 2002, he was fined $2,000 for possession of a dangerous drug.  He was educated up to F. 2 level and was a construction site worker at the time of the arrest. The urine sample collected on 31 March 2016 showed opiate-negative. 

4.On the one hand, the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Report for the 26 April 2016 hearing stated that “[b]ased on medical examination, clinical observation and the facts available, the Medical Officer is of the opinion that he is a drug dependant.  In view of his weak will-power, the availability of a place in the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and taking into consideration that drug abuse is his imminent problem, a period of compulsory drug addiction treatment coupled with intensive supervision would be beneficial to him.  He is therefore considered suitable for admission to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre” (at p. 3 bottom and p. 4).  On the other hand, the Probation Officer’s Report for today’s hearing, 16 May 2016, stated that “[g]iven his no drug addiction at the present time, the availability of family support and no need for receiving counseling services, probation supervision with counseling services is not necessary for him at this stage and therefore Probation Order is not recommended for this case” (para. 6). 

5.As the Probation Officer’s assessment is the more updated one, I place more weight on it than the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Report.  He has apparently learned a dear lesson.  I take a starting point of 6 weeks’ imprisonment.  His plea of guilty attracts a one-third discount.  His sentence is 4 weeks. 

(E. Yip)
District Judge

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 1114/2015