HKSAR v. Sae Lam Ekapoj (also known as Lam Siu-wah)

DCCC 845/2019

[2020] HKDC 340

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 845 OF 2019

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Yes, Mr Lam has pleaded guilty to three offences: failing to produce his identity, possession of a dangerous drug and possession of apparatus. The convictions on these offences based on facts would show that on 16 April 2019, the defendant was intercepted outside premises in Mong Kok. He was unable at the time to produce his identity card. There was later a search of the premises from which he was seen leaving where the drug was found, and that is 10.20 grammes of cocaine, together with apparatus that could be used to inhale and consume drug.

2.The defendant has frankly admitted possession of drug and the inhaling devices and failure to have his identity card as required. The defendant at the time said that the drugs were for his own consumption.  He maintained that position.

3.As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, the defendant is a drug dependent.  The reports show that he has abused drugs since about 1990, and he is now aged some 46 years old and was in fact born in Portugal.  He has abused drugs since 1990, a number of different drugs but it does include cocaine, the drug in his possession.  He has committed quite a large number of offences, 27 in total, being dealt with by way of detention centre, probation, community service orders, sentences of imprisonment, both suspended and immediate.  He has been to drug addiction centre in year 2000 and 2005. 

4.Given the defendant’s history and the fact he is convicted for the offence of possession, I obtained a drug addiction treatment centre report.  The defendant is found to be a drug dependent and would be found to benefit from a compulsory drug addiction treatment programme coupled with the intensive counselling and supervision, and he is therefore suitable for that disposal.  

5.There is some indication or some suspicion he may have a more serious illness.  Unfortunately, I am not in a position to deal with that today as there is no further information about that.

6.The normal range of sentencing in respect of certainly the drug, possession of the drug and that is the most serious offence the defendant faces, would at least begin with a sentence of imprisonment of the range of 12 to 18 months.  In addition to that, there would be an enhancement for the risk of the drug falling into other people’s hands.  And given that the amount of drug in this case is slightly in excess of 10 grammes, there must be some latent risk.

7.However, the defendant, as I have observed earlier, is found to be suitable for drug addiction treatment centre.  It is the case that for any cursory perusal of the defendant’s record that his offending originated out of his drug addiction, a long‑term drug addiction.  Possibly a case that without that drug addiction, there would be little prospect of the defendant’s falling into recidivism like he has done. 

8.The proper practice of sentencing in this case will be to deal with the real problem which is the defendant’s drug addiction, and the only way I can approach that is to make a drug addiction treatment centre order in respect of these offences, and I will proceed to do that in respect of these three offences with a drug addiction treatment centre order with conviction being recorded.  This is the order I will make.