|
DCCC675/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 675 OF 2011
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Yu Kai-on (D1) |
|
| |
Tam Ka-fai (D2) |
|
| ---------------------- |
Before: H H Judge Browne
Date: 12 October 2011 at 10.48 am
Present:
|
Ms Ranee Khubchandani, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Brian Lewis Littlewood, of Messrs Littlewoods, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Defendant
Mr Chan Ming-fai, Arthur, of Rowland Chow, Chan & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd Defendant
|
Offence:
|
(2) Keeping a divan (經營煙窟)
(against the 2nd Defendant only)
(3) – (4) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) (against the 2nd Defendant only)
(5) Possession of offensive weapons (管有攻擊性武器) (against the 2nd Defendant only)
|
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. D2 pleaded guilty to three charges. All the offences were committed in March of this year, two on the 8th and 9th and one on the 9th.
2. The 1st charge, Charge 2 on the charge sheet, was a charge of keeping a divan at premises in Castle Peak Road. The drugs on sale in the divan were ketamine and cocaine. The 2nd charge, Charge 3 on the charge sheet, is a charge of trafficking in an unspecified quantity of cocaine at those premises, and the 3rd charge, which is Charge 4 on the charge sheet, is trafficking in 13.75 grammes of ketamine and 0.11 grammes of cocaine.
3. The defendant was arrested following a police operation conducted on the early morning of 9 March 2011. Police officers raided a stone hut in Chung Uk Tsuen in Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun. Inside the premises, they came across two defendants, D1 and D2. D1 tried to flee and was stopped by the police D2 fled and climbed up to the rooftop but was later arrested by one of the officers.
4. The 1st defendant has pleaded guilty to Charge 1, a charge of possession of an unspecified quantity of cocaine.
5. Inside the premises the officers came across various paraphernalia: plastic bags, bottles, five bundles of resealable plastic bags, two electronic scales, a gravity scale, blender covers, an electric blender, four lighters, two rolls of tinfoil, two pairs of scissors, two metal clams and 11 metal pipes of a diameter of 1.5 inches.
6. The 2nd defendant was found in possession of just over $600 in cash and he admitted to the arresting officer that he was working in the premises helping his boss selling ketamine and cocaine and serving customers. He admitted that D1 was a customer and that D1 had come to the premises the day before and purchased two packets of cocaine at the price of $800.
7. The 2nd defendant was later interviewed under caution and again he admitted being responsible for the premises and serving customers. He said he did not receive any salary but was allowed to take free drugs inside the premises.
8. In a further interview he said that his boss allowed him to spend the money collected from customers on various items that he needed, cigarettes and free drugs, but the rest of the money was to be given to the boss.
9. D2 has a number of previous court appearances. He has appeared before the court on eight previous occasions and there are nine offences, six of which are offences are for drug-related offences, all possession, not trafficking.
10. In mitigation, I was told that D2 is 32 years of age, he is single, his parents are divorced and he lives with his mother who is in her 50s. He was educated to Form 2 level and had worked as a casual transportation worker earning $10,000 per month from which he used to contribute to the household expenses.
11. I was told that he has been out of work for several months and committed these offences because of his financial hardship.
12. The main mitigation is the guilty plea entered to all the offences and the fact that he has been cooperative with the police.
13. As regards the offences themselves, obviously they all attract custodial sentences. For Charges 2 and 3, the starting point would be 2 years’ imprisonment. For Charge 4, the starting point would be 4 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to have those sentences discounted because he has pleaded guilty to all offences, so the relevant sentences will be 16 months, 16 months and 32 months.
14. I have to consider the question of totality.
15. It appears to me that it would be wrong in principle to make them all completely concurrent. What I propose to do is to impose the sentence on Charge 2 of 16 months, on Charge 3, 16 months and Charge 4, 32 months. The charges on 3 and 4 will run concurrently, but 24 months of that sentence will run consecutive to the sentence on Charge 2, so the total sentence will be one of 40 months. I order that the sentences run consecutive to his existing term of imprisonment.
|