HKSAR v. Ho Chak Lai

DCCC177/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.177 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The defendant was charged for:

1. Trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134

2. Possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a)and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134

3. Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 36 (1) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134

The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, he is convicted accordingly.

Facts

On 9 December 2010, Police entered the defendant’s premises with a search warrant and found therein:

1)Packing tools including 2 electronic scales, 1 bundle of trim tinfoil, 8 pieces of lottery tickets with burnt marks, a large number of small resealable transparent plastic bags; 1 roll of tinfoil; 1 lighter; 4 glass tubes and 2 transparent tubes.

2)1 plastic bottle containing 55.91 grammes of a powder containing caffeine;

3)1 plastic bottle containing 0.68 grammes of a powder containing caffeine;

4)4 mobile phones;

5)3 notebooks with suspicious transaction records;

6)cash of HK$3,130 and CYN97.5;

7)The subject matter of Charge 1

i. 8 packets containing a total of 1.47 grammes of a mixture containing 0.9 gramme of heroin hydrochloride.

ii. 1 paper packet containing 0.07 gramme of a mixture containing heroin hydrochloride

iii. 4 packets containing a total of 0.65 grammes of a mixture containing 0.14 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 0.01 gramme of midazolam.

iv. 1 paper packet containing 0.26 gramme of a mixture containing 0.04 gramme of heroin hydrochloride and 3 milligrammes of midazolam.

v. 1 paper packet containing traces of a powder containing heroin and midazolam.

vi. 4 packets containing a total of 6 tablets and 0.36 grammes of tablet fragments containing 0.10 gramme of midazalom.

vii. 1 packet containing 2 tablets containing a total of 0.02 gramme of midazolam.

viii. 250 tablets containing a total of 3.47 grammes of midazolam.

ix. 25 tablets containing a total of 0.35 grammes of midazolam.

8)The subject matter of Charge 2

1 plastic bag containing 0.45 gramme of a crystalline solid containing 0.44 gramme of methamphetamine hydrochloride;

9)The subject matter of Charge 3

i. 1 inhaling device consisting of 1 bottle inserted with 2 straws and 1 of which was shaped as a bulb at one end containing traces of methamphetamine

ii. 1 plastic bottle containing traces of methamphetamine

iii. 1 glass tube containing traces of methamphetamine

Under caution at the scene, the defendant admitted that he diluted the heroin for self-consumption and if there were any leftover, he would sell them to others for money. The ice was for his own-consumption and he used the inhaling devices for consuming ice.

In a subsequent interview, the defendant admitted further that he bought 300 tablets of midazolam at HK$9,000 and 10 packets of heroin at HK$1,500 on 8 December 2010. He diluted the heroin by mixing it with midazolam and caffeine.

Mitigation

The defendant aged 32, a divorced person and lives with his girlfriend at the time of his arrest. The defendant was a transportation worker earning $13,000 per month and used to contribute $2000 per month to his mother.

The defendant has 14 previous conviction with 4 related to drugs, and he has been sentenced to DATC for a number of times, he was sentenced to DATC in 2007 for possession of dangerous drugs.

Sentencing

In view of what the defendant said under caution, the quantity and the combination of the mixed drugs found in the premises, it appeared that the defendant intended to repack the 10 packets of heroin into about 30 packets by mixing midazolam and caffeine. The defendant no longer claimed the heroin and midazolam was partly for his consumption, and I also considered this is consistent to the circumstances as revealed in the facts, I considered the appropriate starting point to be 2 years imprisonment for Charge 1.

Taken the circumstances as a whole and the quantities of the ICE involved, I consider there is a high potential risk that part of the ICE would be passed over to another person for monetary reward, and consider the appropriate starting point to be 12 months imprisonment for Charge 2.

For Charge 3, I considered the appropriate starting point to be 6 months imprisonment.

The defendant entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea, however, I do not consider there to be any mitigating factor that called for further deduction.

Charge 2 and 3 are closely related to each other and I consider a concurrent order is appropriate for these two charges.

On the other hand, Charge 1 is an offence with a different nature and concerned 2 different drugs associated with different purpose, I do not consider it would be appropriate to have all the sentences to run concurrently, however, taken into account of the totality principal, I would order the sentence to run partly concurrent and partly consecutive.

Order

Charge 1 sentenced to 16 months imprisonment;

Charge 2 sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, 4 months concurrent 4 months consecutive with Charge 1;

Charge 3 sentenced to 4 months imprisonment concurrent to all, making a total of 20 months imprisonment.