HKSAR v. Yiu Kwok Kei

DCCC192/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 192 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of dangerous drugs. The particulars of the offence are unremarkable. They are on 22 December 2008, in Temple Street, he was found in possession of a small quantity of ketamine, 7.36 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is better known as “Ice” and 10 tablets containing 0.07 grammes of nimetazepam.

2.The defendant also pleaded guilty to a 2nd charge of resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The particulars are that on the same occasion in Temple Street, he resisted three police officers who were all acting in the execution of their duties.

3.The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant discloses that shortly before 10.30 on the morning of 22 December 2008, three police officers were on anti-dangerous drug patrol in Yaumatei district when they spotted the defendant. The defendant was coming out of an amusement game centre on Temple Street and he was behaving furtively, so the police intercepted him for a search. Inside a coins bag in his pocket, they recovered the drugs, the subject of the charge.

4.All of a sudden, the defendant bumped into the second police officer and that officer immediately grabbed hold of the defendant’s shoulder and warned him to stand still. The defendant refused to do so and there was a vigorous struggle with the police officers. And, fortunately, nobody sustained any injuries. When the defendant was later taken to the police station, he was interviewed under caution and said that the drugs which were found in his possession were for his own consumption.

5.The defendant has an appalling record. He has 25 previous convictions. His convictions started when he was 11 years of age. And I note that his first drugs conviction was not until 1996, although it is clear from the reports that he was a drug dependent prior to that. I note that he has never been convicted of an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. And his offences cover theft, robbery, burglaries, drugs and offences of violence.

6.I adjourned the case on the last occasion for a drug addiction treatment centre report, and that discloses that the defendant has been admitted to the DATC centre on four previous occasions in 1995, 96, 99 and 2008. And I note that he was subject to drug addiction treatment centre recall when he committed this offence. And the report shows that shortly after his arrest on this offence, on 24 December 2008, he was ordered to return to the drug addiction treatment centre, and he was kept there until 12 March 2009. According to the medical officer, the defendant is no longer drug dependent.

7.I am told that prior to this arrest in connection with this offence, he was employed as a casual scaffolding worker, earning some $450 a day.

8.I am told by counsel representing the defendant that all the drugs which were found in the defendant’s possession were for his own consumption. He urges upon me that the latent risk factor, the risk of the drugs being distributed to others, is small in this case.

9.I have considered all the various factors, including the quantity of drugs that were seized from the defendant and his record. I take the view that the appropriate starting point for this offence is one of 12 months’ imprisonment. The only real mitigation in this case is that the defendant has pleaded guilty, and he will be entitled to a discount of one-third to reflect that guilty plea. So the defendant will go to prison for eight months.

In respect of the second charge, I sentence him to 14 days imprisonment to him concurrently to charge 1. I look a starting point of 21 days imprisonment.

10.I note that the defendant was arrested on 22 December in connection with these offences and he has been kept in custody since then. So he will soon be eligible for discharge, provided he has behaved himself, next week.