HKSAR v. WU LAI KEI, MAY

DCCC 1028A/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1028A OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  Defendant pleaded guilty before me to two counts of offence. Charge 1: Possession of a dangerous drug - The drug involved is 0.04 gramme of a powder containing ketamine. Charge 2: Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause.

2.  The prosecution case was on the day of offence, 9 August 2016, at around 5:40 pm, police officers spotted the defendant and her friend acting furtively in the street in Tai Po area and therefore stopped them for questioning.  Upon body search, the officers found drugs on the defendant as well as on her friend.  From the defendant’s left hand, the officers seized a plastic bag containing the drug as particularised in Charge 1.  Defendant told the police that the drug was for her own consumption.  Defendant was subsequently charged with one count of possession while her friend a trafficking offence.

3.  Their case was scheduled to be dealt with together in the same proceeding in the District Court.  Defendant’s case was first brought up in the District Court on 22 November 2016.  As she indicated a guilty plea, her case was set down for plea and sentence on 10 February 2017.  Defendant was admitted to bail pending sentence.  However, on the return day, 10 February 2017, the defendant failed to appear in court.  A warrant for her arrest was issued.

4.   About a month later, on 15 March 2017, the defendant was intercepted by a patrolling officer in the street in Tsim Sha Tsui area and she was re-arrested.

5.  The defendant, a 41-year-old woman, has two previous convictions.  Both are related to drugs back in 2011 and 2013.  The court heard that about two weeks ago, the defendant was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for yet another drug offence.  So she is serving a 6 months’ term at the moment.

6.  The court adjourned the sentence pending a DATC report.  The report says the defendant is no longer a drug dependant, and therefore she is not considered suitable for admission to a drug addiction treatment centre.

7.  Three letters have been submitted to the court for its consideration: one from the defendant, one from her mother and one from a social worker. Apart from submitting the letters, counsel for the defendant reiterated that the defendant is now remorseful for what she did and determined to quit her drug habit and asked for the court’s leniency.

8.   There are sentencing guidelines for simple possession of dangerous drugs.  In Mok Cho Tik, the appellate court said for an offence of simple possession of dangerous drug, if the court is minded to send the offender to prison, a term between 12 to 18 months is to be considered.  The appellate court went on to say that in a case of small amount of drugs, the court may take a lower starting point.

9.  Given the minute quantity of the drugs in the present case, I will take 4 months as starting point.  The defendant’s plea is not timely because she absconded for the first time and was re-arrested after a month later.  For that matter, I would give her one-quarter instead of the usual discount of one-third.  So for the drug offence, she is sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment.

10.  As far as the 2nd charge is concerned, given the length of time she has been absconding, I take one and a half month as starting point.  Giving the usual one-third discount, she is sentenced to 1-month imprisonment.

11.  The two offences are distinct and separate.  I therefore order both terms to run consecutively to one another.  The total term is one of 4 months’ imprisonment.

12.  The defendant is now serving a 6 months’ term.  Taking into consideration of this, I order 3 months be run consecutively to her existing 6-month term.