HKSAR V Wheelband Philip George

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 208/2010 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 28 September 2010.

1. The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of possession of 7.9 grammes of cannabis resin, contrary to section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134 (charge 15).

Cites 1 case

Application by D2 for leave to appeal against sentence to Court of Appeal dismissed. Please refer to CACC383/2010 dated 16 June 2011
Case No.DCCC 208/2010
Court
District Court
Date28 Sep 2010
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 208/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 208 OF 2010

____________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  WHEELBAND PHILIP GEORGE (D2)  

____________

Before :

Deputy District Judge Dufton

Date :

28 September 2010

Present:

Miss Virginia Lau, Senior Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Shaun Kelly instructed by Messrs Haldanes assigned bythe Director of Legal Aid, for D2

Offence:

Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of possession of 7.9 grammes of cannabis resin, contrary to section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134 (charge 15).

2.At 00.05 on the 31st October last year the police executed a search warrant at the home of the defendant. The cannabis subject of charge 15 was found from the defendant’s right front trouser pocket.

3.The defendant originally faced 12 charges as a result of which he was refused bail. The defendant remained in custody until thirteen days ago when the High Court granted unconditional bail.

4.Mr Kelly submits that a person with no previous convictions for narcotic offences could realistically expect to be dealt with for possession of 7.9 grammes of cannabis by way of a fine in the absence of any aggravating features. I agree with Mr Kelly that current sentencing practice in the Magistrates court indicates a financial penalty would be imposed. There are no aggravating features in this case. In view of the quantity a relatively substantial fine would be imposed.

5.Taking into account the period of time the defendant has spent in custody and that due to his current financial position I will impose only a nominal fine. The defendant is fined $500.

  (D. J. DUFTON)
  Deputy District Judge

Application by D2 for leave to appeal against sentence to Court of Appeal dismissed. Please refer to CACC383/2010 dated 16 June 2011

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 208/2010