|
DCCC 618/2014
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 618 OF 2014
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Kwok Chi-shing |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
HH Judge Casewell |
| Date: |
4 November 2014 at 2.36 pm |
| Present: |
Mr Vincent Lee, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Woon Jee-quan, Freddy, instructed by Eli K K Tsui & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) and (2) Possession of a dangerous drug(管有危險藥物)
|
| |
(3) Attempt to escape from lawful custody(企圖從合法羈押逃脫)
|
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences today. Two are of possession of a dangerous drug, and one is of attempt to escape from lawful custody.
2. The facts show that in respect of the first offence, it occurred on 8 April this year. A stop and search; three plastic bags of what turned out to be ketamine found in the defendant’s right trouser pocket; the drug contents, 23.61 grammes of ketamine said to be for his own consumption. The value of the drugs was only $2,400. He had bought them from somewhere in Mong Kok previously.
3. In his video-recorded interview the defendant said he was a hard-core addict and that the drugs would last him three to four days. That statement appears to be supported both by his previous conviction in 2009, when he went to drug addiction treatment centre, and also the contents of the drug addiction treatment centre report I ordered.
4. The second offence is, inevitably, possession of a dangerous drug. This is on 20 April 2014. Again, the defendant was intercepted after trying to run away. He was found with 0.55 grammes of a powder containing ketamine. It appears to be a single dose that he bought for $100.
5. The defendant was taken back to the Lantau North Police Station, where he committed the third offence, which is attempt to escape from lawful custody. He was taken to see the Duty Officer at the Report Room. The defendant then ran away. He bumped his body against one of the police officers and ran outside. He managed to get 10 metres from the police station.
6. The facts essentially show the defendant was in possession of 23.61 grammes of ketamine. He then committed another offence of possession of dangerous drugs whilst on bail, and then, when he was apprehended, he tried to escape.
7. His criminal record, which he has admitted, shows that he went to drug addiction treatment centre in 2009 for possession of dangerous drugs. He was bound over on 27 July 2011 for a dissimilar matter.
8. Because the defendant was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug, a drug addiction treatment centre suitability report was obtained. The summary is that he was born into a working class family and came to Hong Kong when he was about 9 years old to join his parents. He became a drug addict in 2008, went to the drug addiction treatment centre in 2009, and has continued his addiction since then.
9. The detention for six months since his arrest means that, in the medical officer’s opinion, he is no longer drug dependent, so he cannot be considered for a drug addiction treatment centre order, and it would appear that there is a medical report on the defendant as well. On 3 April he was admitted to hospital as a result of his abuse of ketamine, so there can be no doubt the defendant was at the time an addict of this drug. It is trite to say, but the drug has, of course, ruined his young adulthood. He has the possibility, now that he is no longer dependent, to free himself of the drug over the next period of time.
10. He expresses remorse, and clearly has support from his family, who are here today to support him.
11. Turning now to the sentence, on the 1st charge, the defendant was in possession of a substantial quantity of ketamine, which means, of course, that I must make some assessment as to the latent risk of the distribution of the drug. Of course, the simple possession of a drug such as ketamine can lead to a sentence ranging between 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment.
12. The defendant has a previous conviction and is a long‑term addict. Insofar as that element of the sentence is concerned, I will consider the defendant should be at the higher range of 18 months. In respect of the 1st charge there also is the quantity of drug, and I must assess the risk of the drug being distributed.
13. The defendant is clearly a long-term addict with a substantial I think one would describe as a habit; he consumes quite a lot. Nevertheless, the defendant at the time was working as a delivery worker and was consuming a substantial quantity of ketamine, so there was a risk that the defendant would in some way distribute the drug to support his habit. I consider this to be reflected in an additional 6 months’ imprisonment to the 18 months I have already stated, which gives a figure of 24 months’ imprisonment.
14. After deduction for the defendant’s plea of guilty, that would lead to a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment on that charge.
15. The 2nd charge, possession of a dangerous drug, is a simple possession of a small quantity. Although the offence was committed whilst on bail, of course, if one is an addict, one is continuing to commit the offence.
16. I will take a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 8 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.
17. On the 3rd charge, the defendant obviously admits he escaped from lawful custody. It was impulsive and ill‑advised and warrants a prison sentence.
18. I will take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 2 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.
19. I now consider the overall totality. The 1st and 2nd charges are part and parcel of the defendant’s addiction. I am going to order that those sentences run concurrently. The 3rd offence is, of course, a separate and distinct offence of a different character. I shall order that to run consecutively to the 1st and 2nd charges.
20. That gives an overall total of 18 months’ imprisonment for this set of offences, and that will be the sentence imposed.
| |
T Casewell |
| |
District Judge |
|