HKSAR v. Chow Hei Keung Peter

DCCC 927, 928 & 1120/2015
(Consolidated)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 927, 928 & 1120 OF 2015 (CONS)

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of inhaling dangerous drugs, contrary to Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.Acting on information, the police were waiting outside the defendant’s home on 15 August 2015.  The police had a search warrant to execute in relation to the defendant’s home.  When he arrived at about 6.30 pm and opened the door, the police stopped the defendant.

3.What then happened was a house search.  The police found many drug-related paraphernalia, including the drug “Ice” and a device for inhaling “Ice”. 

4.The defendant admitted that he had used in the past that device for inhaling “Ice”.  He told the police that the “Ice” itself belonged to the 2nd defendant and he supplied as much information as he could to the police, which the prosecution accept led to the police arresting the 2nd defendant.  She was charged in relation to the drug found in his home and pleaded guilty to the charge, trafficking that “Ice”.

5.The 3rd defendant is a 45-year-old man.  He does have previous criminal records.  He has four previous:  two are drug related and in 2009 he did serve a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order.  

6.I have, after his plea, called for a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report.  I know from mitigation and that report the defendant is married, his wife lives in China and he has two children. 

7.The report gives full details of his background; I do not intend to repeat it all.  He has worked in the past as a delivery worker, a driver and, until his plea, a scaffolding worker, earning an average of $16,000 a month. 

8.There is a letter from his employer asking for leniency, saying he is willing to employ him; the defendant works hard.

9.I have also had a letter written by the defendant read out to me.  He explains his wife’s situation now that he will not be able to financially support her for some time.  This expresses his remorse and his preference for jail over a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

10.The report indicates as to the facts the defendant lived alone in the premises.  He admits in the report that he has a long drug addiction history, starting from his teens.  It was not until 2001 when he dabbled in “Ice” and has continued to inhale “Ice” until now.  In fact, right up until his plea, whilst on bail, he was still inhaling “Ice”.

11.Other than the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order in 2009, he has not received any other drug addiction treatment, be it voluntary or compulsory.

12.The report itself is of the view that, according to the medical officer, the defendant is a drug addict and recommends an order.

13.I understand his best mitigation is his plea. Also, there is the additional information that he gave to the police that led to the arrest of the 2nd defendant.

14.However, sentencing is a balancing act and the defendant is an addict that requires drug addiction treatment.

15.I cannot ignore the fact that he is an addict and an addict on “Ice”, which is an extremely dangerous drug.

16.The defendant is not a young reckless teenager. He is a middle-aged man, a husband and a father with responsibilities, and yet will not try or cannot quit drugs.  In the past, I have heard every imaginable excuse why drug addicts prefer prison over Drug Addiction Treatment Centre, and I am sorry his family will suffer financially, but the defendant has brought this upon himself and them.

17.Defendant, please stand up.

18.I have considered your plea to this charge, the facts of the case, mitigation put forward and letters submitted. 

19.After considering the details of the report, I consider a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order appropriate for this charge and sentence you to such an order.

20.Conviction recorded.