|
DCCC1302/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1302 OF 2010
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Lai Kin-kwok (D1) |
|
| |
Li Chi-ho (D2) |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Date: |
22 March 2011 at 9.53 am |
| Present: |
Mr Andy Cheng, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Wong Wai-man, of Yu & Associates, for the 1st Defendant
Mr John Marray, instructed by N K Tsang & Co., for the 2nd Defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug (管有適合於及擬用作吸服危險藥物的器具)
(2) Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物)
(3) Conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug (串謀販運危險藥物) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The 1st defendant in this case pleaded guilty to two charges, the first one being possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of dangerous drugs. The apparatus consisted of an inhaling device which had one plastic bottle attached with a straw and partially wrapped by tinfoil, and this was for use for the inhalation of cocaine. The 2nd charge was one of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely, 67.58 grammes of ketamine and 5.69 grammes of cocaine.
2. On 18 September 2010, police officers conducted an anti-dangerous drug raid in the area of Room 16A, 1st Floor, Block A, Tung Lo Court, Tai Po Road, Sham Shui Po.
3. At about 0145 hours police officers saw the defendant and another man approaching the premises. The 1st defendant opened the premises with keys, and he was intercepted by the officers. Through the open door the officers could see the inhalation device on a table. The 1st defendant confirmed he was the tenant of the premises and permitted the officers to search. The officers recovered from the living room table the items the subject of the 1st charge. The defendant also admitted to the police officers he was aware that he had other items in his possession, and showed the officers a PCCW bag which contained the other dangerous drugs. The street value of Exhibit 3 was $14,541, and the others, $8,561.
4. The defendant is 50 years of age, and there are only two matters recorded on his record and they were 30 years ago. They were for minor offences for which he was dealt with by way of a fine and bound over. So for today’s purposes, I propose to treat the defendant as a person of good character.
5. I am told that the defendant is 50 years of age, and his current wife is aged 40 and a PRC resident. He has a son aged 23 by a former wife, and he was working as a lorry driver until 2000. Before his arrest he was living on Comprehensive Social Security Allowance.
6. Defence counsel submits that what caused the defendant to be driven to commit these offences was that his father-in-law on the Mainland was diagnosed with liver cancer and requires expensive medical treatment and his second wife asked him for money to finance this treatment, and it was in those circumstances that he committed the offence.
7. In mitigation, counsel urged upon me not only the guilty plea of the defendant, but also his cooperation at the time of the offence. The police officers carrying out the raid were not in possession of a search warrant, yet he allowed them to search his premises. He admitted everything at the time to the police and even showed them where the paper containing the dangerous drugs was to be found.
8. As counsel acknowledges, and as he told the court, he has explained to the defendant that for these types of offences there are guidelines for the courts as regards sentencing in these kinds of cases.
9. For trafficking in 67.58 grammes of ketamine, the appropriate band is 6 to 9 years, and for trafficking in cocaine, the appropriate band is 2 to 5 years. The ketamine trafficking, in view of the amount, would be at the lower end of the scale of 6 to 9 years, and the cocaine would attract a sentence of about 3½ years were those offences to stand alone.
10. I have considered the question of totality. I have also taken into account his clear record and the fact that he was very cooperative with the police.
11. In respect of the ketamine, I propose to take a starting point at the lower end of the band. In my view, a starting point of 6 years would be appropriate.
12. As regards the cocaine and looking at the totality of the evidence, I have decided that the sentence should be increased to 6½ years to cover both drugs.
13. The defendant is entitled to the full discount for his guilty plea, so that sentence on Charge 2 will be reduced to
4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
14. The 1st charge is a much less serious charge.
I intend to impose a sentence of 6 months for that offence, and that shall run concurrently with the sentence on Charge 2.
15. The total period of imprisonment will be 4 years and 4 months.
|