|
DCCC 634/2021
[2023] HKDC 391
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 634 OF 2021
________________________
________________________
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge Daniel Tang |
| Present: |
Mr Davies Oliver Howell, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR/ Director of Public Prosecutions |
| |
Ms Mohamed Nisha, instructed by Cheung & Liu, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offences: |
[1] Trafficking in a dangerous drug(販運危險藥物) |
| |
[2] Driving without a valid driving licence(駕駛時無有效駕駛執照) |
| |
[3] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance(沒有第三者保險而使用汽車) |
________________________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
________________________
1. The Defendant, Mr Naseer Umari, had been convicted by me on 18 January 2023. The details of the case is recorded in my Reasons for Verdict.
2. I called a background report and reserved the Mitigation and Sentence.
3. I received the mitigation bundle from Ms Mohamed, the Defence Counsel, on 9 February 2023. I considered the content of the mitigation bundle and the background report carefully.
4. According to the authorities[1] and my calculation, the usual sentence of Charge 1, trafficking of 6.09 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (ICE) is 64 months’ imprisonment.
5. The maximum sentence for Charge 2, driving without a valid licence, is 3 months’ imprisonment and a fine of $5,000; that for Charge 3 is 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $10,000 and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicle for a period of 12 to 36 months from the date of conviction.
6. The Defendant is not a fresh offender, he has criminal records like possession of dangerous drugs and managing gambling establishment. According the background report, I find the Defendant’s only mitigating factor is he pleaded guilty to Charge 2 and 3.
7. For Charge 1, the usual sentence is 64 months’ imprisonment and I do not find any reason to deviate from it. Further, at the material time, he was a Form 8 holder, it is well established that such a fact is an aggravating feature and the enhancement of sentence should be substantial[2]. After considering the authorities[3], I think a 6 months’ enhancement is appropriate, so the total sentence for Charge 1 should be 70 months’ imprisonment.
8. For Charge 2, the starting point should be 6 weeks’ imprisonment, and that for Charge 3 should be 3 months’ imprisonment. The Defendant pleaded guilty to them at the early stage, so I deduct one third from the starting point and impose 1 month’s imprisonment for Charge 2 and 2 months’ imprisonment for Charge 3 on the Defendant. According to the totality principle, Charge 2 and 3’s imprisonment terms should run concurrently. He should also be disqualified for 12 months under Charge 3, counting from the date of conviction.
9. The prison terms of Charge 1 should run consecutively with Charge 2 and 3 as they were not related.
10. The total sentence should be:
a. 70 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1 (minus 42 days for the administrative detention);
b. 1 month’s imprisonment for Charge 2;
c. 2 months’ imprisonment for Charge 3, which runs concurrently with Charge 2. Under Charge 3, the Defendant is also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 12 months, counting from the date of conviction;
d. The total imprisonment term is 72 months (minus 42 days for the administrative detention).
|
( Daniel Tang ) |
|
Deputy District Judge |
[1] HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691 and AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125
[2] HKSAR v Mahabul Alam Khan [2017] HKCU 2268 and HKSAR v Butt Muhammad Gulzar [2020] 3 HKLRD 805
[3] HKSAR v Rahman Md Motaleb CACC 235/2021 [2023] HKCA 91, [2023]HKEC 145 and HKSAR v Dong Xuan Chung DCCC 764/2021, [2022] HKDC 1237, [2022] CHKEC 1664
|