HKSAR v. KHALIQ SALMAN

HCCC 95/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 95 OF 2016

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: Khaliq Salman, I am not going to preach a sermon to you.

You know the consequences of possessing illegal drugs. In your case, you possessed a mixture of 22.79 grammes which contained 22.38 grammes of ‘Ice’ in 60 packets, one of which, I accept, was almost consumed, and you said that you had in fact consumed one of those packets with the man who supplied you with that quantity of ‘Ice’.

As the law requires me to do, I sent you away for a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre suitability report. In that report, I am told that you are not considered a drug addict and that you are unsuitable for Drug Addiction Treatment Centre training, which means that an immediate sentence of imprisonment is the only option I have when it comes to my sentencing you.

Mr Parry, your counsel, had said all that can be said on your behalf. It is to your credit that you pleaded guilty to the 1st count on the indictment relating to the smaller quantity of the ‘Ice’ and that you always accepted that you possessed the ‘Ice’ in the 2nd count for your own consumption, while denying that you had it for the purposes of trafficking, and that is a claim which the jury, by their verdict, obviously accepted.

What is not in your favour is the fact that you have five previous convictions in Hong Kong for drugs possession. It is also to your discredit that you are an asylum seeker here in Hong Kong, wilfully committing offences against Hong Kong law while, at the same time, seeking its protection from a claimed abuse of your human rights in your native country.

Although you face two counts on the indictment, one of possession and one of trafficking, it is clear that the jury, by its verdict, accepted that all of the drugs, all the ‘Ice’ was for your own use. In effect, I take it the jury was of the view in this case that you are guilty of the one offence.

When it comes to sentencing you, I propose to base my sentence on the larger quantity of ‘Ice’ in the 2nd count and pass a nominal sentence, a concurrent sentence, in respect of the ‘Ice’ in the 1st count.

Mr Parry has very thoroughly addressed me on the principles I should apply in determining the length of your sentence. I am taking a starting point sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. I take account of the fact that the ‘Ice’ was in 60 separate packets, admittedly one of them being almost consumed, and that it was clearly capable of being shared with others. You have in fact admitted, in the course of your evidence, to sharing one of the packets with your supplier when you collected or bought the drugs from him.

I am aware that you lived in a village area, away from large concentrations of population where sharing amongst drug abusers would have been relatively easy. But nevertheless, I take account of the fact that, on your own admission, that you were prepared to share this ‘Ice’ with others and I assess the latent risk factor in your case as deserving an additional 9 months’ imprisonment.

I also take account of the fact that you have abused Hong Kong’s protection and I regard that as an aggravating factor justifying a further increase in your sentence of 3 months.

I do not propose to further increase your sentence to take account of the fact that this is the sixth occasion you have been found guilty of possessing dangerous drugs. I take the view that your acceptance of possession of the 60 packets of ‘Ice’ is a mitigating factor that justifies my decision not to increase your sentence because of your criminal record.

Your sentence on the 2nd count is one of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. On the 1st count, where there is a far smaller quantity of dangerous drugs, your sentence is one of 4 months’ imprisonment. Both sentences are to be served concurrently, which means at the same time, which means that you will be in prison for a total period of 2 years and 6 months.

Thank you. I think, gentlemen, that’s it. Yes, Mr Parry? You look puzzled.

MR PARRY: Sorry. I am just wondering -- I’m sorry but let me just speak...

COURT: The mathematics?

MR PARRY: No, the maths adds up but the one-third discount for the guilty plea.

COURT: I’ve given him 4 months in respect of –- what are you arguing? He pleaded not guilty to the 2nd count and was found guilty of possession.

MR PARRY: Yes but at the very start of the trial he pleaded guilty to...

COURT: What do you say, Mr Whitehouse?

MR WHITEHOUSE: I think Mr Parry has a very fair point there. It is accepted that the defendant...

COURT: If it is accepted, then I shall give it.

MR WHITEHOUSE: ...would’ve pleaded guilty...

COURT: I shall give it, I shall give him a further discount then, there’s no reason why not. I’m still functus.

MR WHITEHOUSE: Yes. I think I would accept that.

MR PARRY: I’m grateful, my Lord. Thank you, my Lord.

COURT: So that takes it down to 20 months, correct?

MR PARRY: Yes.

MR WHITEHOUSE: Twenty months, yes.

COURT: Which is 1 year and 8 months. All right.

Khaliq Salman, Mr Parry has rightly reminded me that as you had pleaded guilty to the 1st count and admitted possession in the 2nd count, you are entitled to a further discount on your sentence and I am giving you a discount of one-third, reducing your sentence to one of 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.

MR WHITEHOUSE: I don’t want to be too technical about this but I suppose the sentence on Count 1 would be a 6 months’ starting point reduced to 4, I suppose, for plea, but you probably don’t need to specify that.

COURT: I suppose so, yes. I will reduce the starting point on the 1st count to one of 4 months’ imprisonment, just for the sake of consistency.

The total is 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.