HKSAR v. Wong Shun-ming, Bobby
|
DCCC32/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 32 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. You admitted that on 15 October 2009, at the lift lobby of the ground floor of Block B, Champagne Court, No. 16 Kimberley Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, you unlawfully trafficked in 2,000 tablets containing 14.02 grammes of nimetazepam. 2.On the evening of 15 October, Customs officers were conducting anti-narcotics operation in the Tsim Sha Tsui area. At around 9 pm, the officers saw you acting in a furtive manner. They thus intercepted you at the location as stated in the charge and found on you the dangerous drugs. When you were arrested, you stated that the plastic bag you were holding contained “Ng Chai” which is otherwise nimetazepam. The officer found the 2,000 tablets in a number of foil-packs containing the tablets. 3.Under caution, you admitted that you came across somebody called “Mo Mo” in a pub two days before, and on the day, this Mo Mo asked you to come and collect the drugs in a public telephone booth adjacent to a car park somewhere in Kwun Tong, and then you were to deliver the drugs to the vicinity of Champagne Court. You then complied with Mo Mo’s instructions. You would have received a reward of $2,000 for that. 4.You are a young man of 20 years old and you have one previous conviction for theft in 2009. I informed you that trafficking is a very serious offence, and for all types of trafficking, the most appropriate sentence is usually one of an immediate custodial sentence. I therefore called for detention centre, rehabilitation centre and a training centre reports on you in view of your young age. However, I gave you notice that even though I called for those reports that a sentence of imprisonment would still be open to me. 5.Those reports came back and the medical officer confirmed you were a drug dependent and you were therefore not suitable for any of those centres. In the meantime, your solicitor, Mr Lee, and the prosecutor, Miss Fan, submitted to me authorities on trafficking of nimetazepam, and it is clear from the authorities there that the sentence is discretionary for trafficking in nimetazepam for up to 500 grammes. A sentence of 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for an amount between 500 and 1,000 grammes. The authorities can be found in R v Orton Mag App 225 [1997], and in this case, you fall within the first bracket of under 500 grammes, which sentence should be discretionary. 6.On that resumed adjourned hearing, I therefore called for a drug addiction treatment centre report, seeing that the medical officer there said that you were drug dependent. I was also informed by Mr Lee that you were minded to receive assistance for your drug dependency. I also bore in mind the fact that in view of your young age, I should pass a sentence upon you which is rehabilitative as well as punitive and balance these two together. 7.The drug addiction treatment centre report, confirms your drug dependency, and that you are suitable for admission to the drug addiction treatment centre. You are in need of assistance for your dependency but also require some training for your past wayward behaviour. 8.I am pleased to see that you have realised your wayward behaviour, and you have the support of mother and family, and given your circumstances, I am prepared to impose upon you a sentence to the drug addiction treatment centre. I hope that you will realise that drugs may give you a short level of euphoria, but it gives you a very long, sad life of sadness and trouble. You do not want to be wasting your life and spending your time behind bars. 9.In the circumstances, I consider that DATC is beneficial to you, and in the circumstances, you are sentenced to DATC.
|