HKSAR V (D2) Lam Kwok Leung
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 370/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 17 January 2019.
1. In the afternoon of 16 January 2018, police stopped two men (one of them is D2) coming out of a hotel room in Quarry Bay, which led to the discovery of drugs (12.6 grammes of a solid containing 12.3 grammes of cocaine) in that hotel room and subsequent investigation revealed that the hotel room in question had in effect been used as a place for drug abusers to consume drugs.
Cited by 1 case
|
DCCC 370/2018 [2019] HKDC 69 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 370 OF 2018 ------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE --------------------------------------- 1.In the afternoon of 16 January 2018, police stopped two men (one of them is D2) coming out of a hotel room in Quarry Bay, which led to the discovery of drugs (12.6 grammes of a solid containing 12.3 grammes of cocaine) in that hotel room and subsequent investigation revealed that the hotel room in question had in effect been used as a place for drug abusers to consume drugs. 2.Inside the room, the police first woke D1 out of his afternoon nap, who later admitted inter alia, ownership of the drugs found; he was the person who rented the room; he bought the drugs for $5,000 to share among friends etc. 3.Police found the cocaine on the bedside cabinet which was put in 64 separate plastic bags in one plastic bag along with another plastic bag containing 807 plastic bags, two lighters, one electronic scale and a straw. While on the bed, police found a plastic bottle with an inserted straw and two lighters. D2 admitted to police that he took ice there. 4.D1, a 26-year-old man, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking (charge 1) (his other two charges of smoking/inhaling drugs (charges 2 & 3) are left on court’s files) while D2 admitted to inhaling ice (charge 4). The urine test conducted on D2 after he was taken into custody following his arrest was positive on amphetamine. 5.D1’s sentence had been dealt with already, as far as D2’s sentence is concerned, it has been adjourned for a DATC report to be prepared. Now the report is before the court which does not recommend admission to the DATC. 6.The 2nd defendant, a married man with no children, has amassed 13 prior convictions over the past 3 decades, 8 of which are to do with drugs (3 of them trafficking). His last conviction is possession of drugs back in 2017 for which he was sentenced to DATC. 7.There isn’t much put forward by way of mitigation. In his letter to the court, he said while in custody, he had had time to reflect on what he had done and is determined not to reoffend in the future. As the Chinese New Year is around the corner, he begs the court for a non-custodial sentence so that he can spend time with his family on this festive occasion. 8.The defendant has been on drugs for over 30 years – he is definitely a recidivist. The only appropriate sentence, in my view, is one of custodial sentence. Based on the facts of the case, I take 8 months as the starting point; as his plea is not timely (only indicate a guilty plea 43 days before trial), for that I give him 25% discount, the term is reduced to 6 months. 9.There being nothing else to justify a further reduction, D2 is therefore sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
|
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 370/2018