|
DCCC 561/2021
[2022] HKDC 1381
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 561 OF 2021
________________________
________________________
| Present: |
Mr Edward F Le B Laskey, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Roy K Y Lau, instructed by Fu & Cheng, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物) |
| |
(2) Resisting police officers in the execution of their
duties (抗拒執行職責的警務人員) |
________________________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
________________________
1. In this case the defendant is convicted after trial of two counts, namely “trafficking in dangerous drugs”, and “resisting police officers in the execution of their duties”.
2. For the trafficking charge, there are very clear sentencing guidelines. Since it involved two kinds of dangerous drugs, the court ought to consider the whole quantity, and cross-check it in order to arrive at a proper sentence. This exercise has been explained in the Court of Appeal and has been repeatedly used in these courts. Both the prosecution and the defence took no issue and I would not go through the same explanations here.
3. According to my research, (the result of which has not been in dispute), in the present case there are two kinds of dangerous drugs and if by using the absurdity test, ie by adopting the sentencing guideline of the most potent of the two dangerous drugs and consider the whole lot, for 6.83 gramms of cocaine it would come up to the sentence of 2 years and 4 months. If using it proportionate to the different kinds of dangerous drugs, the result would be the same.
4. In respect of the resisting charge, the maximum sentence is 6 months and a level 2 fine. The present case is not the most serious of its kind and there are no sentencing guidelines for the same, so I will adopt 2 months as a starting point.
5. I take into account the fact that the whole thing happened on the same night during the same incident, I accept at the time the defendant was in a state of panic during the pursuit. I therefore order the 2 months for the 2nd charge to run concurrent with the sentence of the 1st charge.
6. I turn to consider the mitigations put forward by his counsel and as revealed in the antecedents statement. The defendant is aged 24. He was born in China. He worked on a part-time basis as a decoration worker at $800 per day. Both his parents are still alive. He is married with a one-year-old child. These are the matters which are not relevant mitigation. On the whole, I do not see any relevant mitigation factors which warrant my exercise of additional leniency.
7. The defendant is sentenced to a whole of 28 months’ imprisonment.
|