HKSAR v. Lai Kok Ping

DCCC154/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 154 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant initially faced two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. The dangerous drugs involved in the 1st charge were 6.28 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“Ice”) and 50 tablets containing 0.38 grammes of nimetazepam; and in the 2nd charge, 220 tablets containing 1.66 grammes of nimetazepam.

2.The defendant denied the two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs.  At the conclusion of the prosecution case, I found that there was no case to answer on the charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs but there was one for possession of dangerous drugs and amended both charges to offences of possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. 

3.The defendant then entered pleas of guilty to both charges and he also admitted the amended Summary of Facts which disclosed that on 29 December 2009, officers of the Customs Drugs Investigation Bureau conducted an anti-narcotics operation in the Tai Kok Tsui area.  And at around 7.25 pm, the defendant was spotted acting in a furtive manner and intercepted for inquiry.  The dangerous drug, the subject matter of Charge 1, was found inside his jacket pocket.  He was arrested.  At 7.35 pm, he was escorted to his residence for a house search, and the dangerous drugs, the subject matter of Charge 2, were found.  He admitted possession of all these dangerous drugs.

4.The defendant has a long criminal history dating back to 1981 with 20 previous court appearances involving 32 convictions, 3 of which are drugs-related.  His last conviction was on 15 April 2004 when he was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.  In the antecedent statement, the defendant had claimed that he was a drug addict.

5.I adjourned the matter until today, calling for a DATC report which is now before me.  The defendant takes no issue with the contents.  The report discloses that the defendant was examined by a medical officer who opined that he was a drug dependent and suitable for admission to the DATC.  He has never been to the DATC before.

6.Counsel for the prosecution has handed up two authorities: HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC 261 and HKSAR v Wan Sheung Sum [2000] 1 HKLRD 405 which deal with factors to be considered when determining terms of imprisonment for offences such as these.  I have considered these authorities.  I have also carefully considered all that counsel for the defendant has urged upon me in mitigation.

7.The defendant is now 54 years old.  Prior to his remand, he was a casual decoration worker earning $600 a day.  According to what he told the interviewing officer, he started to abuse nimetazepam in 2001, and in 2003 started to abuse “Ice” as well, taking “Ice” almost daily, spending about $300 each time.  He has been married but is now divorced and has lost contact with his ex-wife as well as his son from the marriage.

8.Although no reference was made to any other children in the DATC report, I am told by Mr Lam that the defendant now has an adult daughter from another marriage who is taking care of the defendant’s 1-and-a-half-year-old baby from his cohabitee who has died earlier this year, and he did hand in a certificate of order authorising burial of the body in respect of his cohabitee.

9.It is clear that the defendant is a drug dependent who has never taken any steps to try to deal with his problem of drug addiction.  The officer who prepared the DATC report opines that in view of the defendant’s weak willpower, the availability of a place in the DATC and taking into consideration that drug abuse is his imminent problem, a period of compulsory drug addiction treatment coupled with intensive supervision would be beneficial to the defendant.  I agree with this opinion.

10.On each charge, the defendant is sentenced to be detained for treatment at the DATC, to be concurrent with convictions to be recorded.