|
DCCC1069/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1069 OF 2010
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Chung Tang-ping |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Date: |
10 December 2010 at 9.57 am |
| Present: |
Mr Alvin Chui, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Ms May Tam, of Solomon C Chong & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)
(2) Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause
(無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges, one of possession of dangerous drugs, the facts being that on 10 December 2008, at a shopping centre in Jat Min Chuen Street in Shatin he was in possession of 16.20 grammes of ketamine. He 2nd charge is that he failed to surrender to custody on 9 March 2009.
2. The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that at 2.31 in the early hours of the morning of 10 December 2008 a team of police officers arrived at a park outside an OK Convenience shop in Jat Min Chuen Shopping Centre. They saw there seven men, including the defendant, and four females. The defendant was searched and a Kent cigarette box was found in his front trouser pocket, and inside that box was found the ketamine the subject of the 1st charge. The defendant admitted buying the ketamine from an unknown man in Mongkok for his own consumption. The other people with the defendant were all released at the scene.
3. The defendant was granted court bail, and on 23 February 2009 he was originally charged with trafficking but the charge was amended and adjourned to 9 March for preparation of a charge sheet. His bail was extended to 9 March 2009 but he failed to appear.
4. He was arrested at the Lo Wu Check Point on 3 September 2010 when coming back from the Mainland. He said under caution that he had gone to China at the end of February 2009 for medical treatment of a chest pain and that it was so painful he was unable to return to Hong Kong to attend court, but he attended Hong Kong as soon as he recovered.
5. The defendant does have a record but nothing relevant. His only conviction was several years ago in 1998 for a completely dissimilar offence.
6. I was told on the last occasion that the defendant was born in Hong Kong, he is aged 30, was educated to Form 3 standard, he was an electrician, and lived in public housing in Shatin. It was opined he was a drug addict when mitigation was submitted previously.
7. He was remanded in custody on the last occasion so the court could have the benefit of reports.
8. I now have a report from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.
9. The defendant and his family members live in public housing. He has a father aged 71, a mother aged 59, and a brother who is 35 who works as a clerk. The defendant is married, his wife is 27 and lives in China. The defendant was educated to Form 3 standard.
10. According to the report, the defendant did not have major problems even though parental supervision of him was described as being inadequate. However, he was not a promising student and his academic performance was below average and as such he dropped out of school after completing Form 3 level of education. He maintained a harmonious family relationship but unfortunately he started to mingle with what is described as undesirable peers whilst playing football in residential areas. He started to take ketamine in 2008, and owing to that problem, he ran into problems with the law. Later he claimed to have stopped taking ketamine.
11. The medical examination and clinical observation of the defendant reveal that he was not drug-dependent and therefore Drug Addiction Treatment Centre is not recommended.
12. A letter has been placed before the court. The defendant claims to be remorseful for what has happened.
13. As regards his failure to answer bail, I am told that, having gone to the Mainland, he came back to Hong Kong specifically for the purpose of surrendering to the police and when he arrived at the border the Immigration Department was unaware of the warrant outstanding and he remained at the border until police could be contacted and he was later arrested and charged with the second offence.
14. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of dangerous drugs and the amount involved is not inconsiderable. The amount of pure ketamine is 16.20 grammes. For trafficking in that quantity of drugs a sentence of 4 to 6 years would be imposed. The defendant claimed to the police that it was for his own consumption.
15. I note from the circumstances that at the time of his arrest he was amongst seven males and four females, it was half past 2 in the morning, and it was outside an OK Convenience Shop. The latent risk of trafficking, of disposing of it to others, must be high in this case.
16. I take as a starting point a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment and I reduce that by one-third to reflect his guilty plea.
17. The sentence for the possession will be therefore one of 10 months’ imprisonment.
18. For the failure to answer bail, I do not accept his excuse as to being ill in China, I do not believe that, but I do accept that when he did come back he did surrender to the police at the border.
19. For that offence I intend to impose a sentence of one month and make it consecutive to the 10 months for the 1st charge.
20. So the total sentence will be one of 11 months’ imprisonment.
|