HKSAR v. Le Hoai Phong
|
DCCC 628/2013 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 628 OF 2013 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in 6.32 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. This is a drug usually referred to as “Ice”. 2.The circumstances of his arrest were that in the early hours of the morning of 19 April 2013, police officers mounted an anti-drug operation in the Shan King Estate in Tuen Mun. At 3.25 am the officers were outside King Lai House at the Shan King Estate when they saw the defendant acting furtively, walking towards Shek Pai Tau Road. The defendant was intercepted and searched and in a cigarette box in his right pocket they found the drugs the subject of the charge.3.When cautioned and arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs, the defendant claimed it was the first time he had purchased “Ice” and it was for his own consumption and begged for a chance. 4.From the defendant, the officers seized a mobile phone and cash of $1,590. 5.In a video recorded interview, the defendant told the police that the previous night he had met a person called “Ah Chun” coincidentally and purchased the drugs from him for $2,000. He claimed that he was going to consume the drugs at a friend’s residence in Shan King Estate and he claimed that he did not have the means of contacting his friend. He also told the police that he had been consuming “Ice” for two years and claimed that the cash was a debt he had collected from his friend. The person he referred to was contacted and said he did know the defendant but said that he would not allow him to consume drugs at his home. 6.Police officers who deal in this type of drug estimated that the value was slightly in excess of $5,000. 7.The defendant has appeared before the court on previous occasions. In 2007 and 2008 he appeared before the court for offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault. He was given probation for both those offences. In 2009 he was back before the courts for breach of the probation order and the order was extended. In 2010 he appeared before the court for two offences of theft and, somewhat surprisingly, he was given probation again, on this occasion, for two years. He breached the terms of his probation and he was back before the court in 2013, when he was sentenced to go to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. He is currently in the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. 8.I was told in mitigation that the defendant is 18 years of age and was educated to Primary 6 level, that he has been a drug addict for two years. 9.I was given a letter from the defendant on the last occasion, indicating that his parents had separated when he was very young. His mother went back to Vietnam and he was brought up by his father who was dependent on public assistance. However, his father unfortunately failed to take proper care of him and his father is currently in custody. He has a younger sister who is still undergoing education. 10.On the last occasion I adjourned the case so that I could have the advantage of a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Services as regards the suitability for the defendant being detained in a training centre. 11.I indicated on that occasion that, notwithstanding any recommendation that might be made, given the quantity of drugs involved in this case, which would normally attract a substantial custodial sentence, even if training centre were recommended, I might not follow that recommendation. 12.I now have that report and I understand that the contents of the report have been discussed with you by your counsel. 13.That report states that the medical officer is of the opinion that the defendant is drug dependent and, therefore, unsuitable for detention in a training centre. 14.The background information contained in that report confirms what I was told in mitigation. The defendant was born in Hong Kong and lived with his family in the Pillar Point Refugee Centre. In 1997 the family, moved to live in Tuen Mun and, because of marital conflict, the defendant’s parents separated in 2003. His father was subsequently sent to prison and the defendant and his siblings were entrusted to the care of maternal relatives in Tuen Mun. The defendant was later placed under temporary foster care when his father was again sentenced to imprisonment in 2005. In 2010 the defendant and his family moved to live in the public housing unit in Tuen Mun. 15.The background report then goes on to discuss the defendant’s upbringing. The officer concludes that the defendant was insufficiently supervised in his childhood and was all along an underachiever at school. The report records the fact that you were placed on probation on a number of occasions but failed to cooperate with the probation officer, who lost contact with the defendant in November 2010. 16.The report states that the defendant later became a triad member and under the influence of his triad peers he became addicted to “Ice” in 2011. 17.The usual sentence for persons trafficking in this quantity of drugs is 5 years’ imprisonment. 18.The only mitigation in this case is the guilty plea entered by the defendant at an early stage. 19.The defendant will be entitled to the usual one-third discount for his guilty plea and will, therefore, receive a sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||