HKSAR v. Kwok Sai Ho

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 291/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 March 2019.

Case No.HCCC 291/2018[2019] HKCFI 1074
Court
High Court CFI
Date20 Mar 2019
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC 291/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 291 OF 2018

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Kwok Sai-ho  

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

Before: Hon Andrew Chan J
Date: 20 March 2019 at 9.44 am
Present: Ms Lilly Wong, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Yeung Yeuk-chuen, instructed by John Ho & Tsui, for the accused
Offence: (1) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
(2) Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of possession of dangerous drug. Stand up, please.

At around 5 am on 23 January 2018, the defendant was intercepted by police officer in Sham Shui Po. 13 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride was found on him.

The street value is estimated to be around HK$9,000.

Urine tests subsequently conducted indicate the presence of methamphetamine in the defendant’s body.

The defendant is 49, unemployed at the time. He has nine previous records, five concerning drugs.

The starting point for possession of methamphetamine which a bona fide user used would be in the range of 12 to 18 months. If the defendant is a persistent offender, the starting point can be set higher. In the present case, given the defendant’s past drug record, the quantity of drug, the starting point is set at 24 months’ imprisonment.

As to the issue of latent risk, since there is little evidence to suggest apart from his own consumption that the drugs involved would be used for trafficking, I am not going to enhance the sentence further.

The defendant only indicates his plea after a trial day has been set. At no time has he indicated to the court that he admitted possession. I do not think it is appropriate to grant the one-third discount to the defendant in the present case. The defendant, of course, will be given the usual one-quarter, a quarter discount. I suspect that indeed, in the present case, whether it is one-third or a quarter, it makes very, very insignificant difference.

For the offence, the defendant stands convicted. He is therefore sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.