HKSAR v. CHAN CHEONG MING

DCCC 279/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 279 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges. He has pleaded guilty to Charge 2, which is resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap.232. He has also pleaded guilty to Charge 3, possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

2. The facts are that on 28 September 2012, the police were involved in a sting operation and the 7th defendant was targeted as a suspect.  On that day at about 11 am a police officer approached the 7th defendant on Canton Road with a view to intercept him.

3. When this officer revealed his identity to the 7th defendant and declared an arrest for the offence of deception, the 7th defendant, according to the facts, suddenly bumped against his shoulder, intending to flee.  There was a brief struggle between the defendant and this police officer, but with the assistance of other officers, the 7th defendant was subdued.

4. After he was arrested, he was searched.  In the handbag he was carrying, the police found dangerous drugs, “Ice”.  There was 9.42 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9.11 grammes of pure “Ice”. This packet of “Ice” was concealed in a tissue packet.  In the bag, the police also found a glass bottle, four rolls of tin foil, as well as some straws for smoking dangerous drugs.

5. The best mitigation is the defendant’s plea of guilty.

6. The defendant is a man who previously had a clear record.  This is his first offence.

7. On the last occasion I heard full mitigation and received letters of support from members of the defendant’s family and his employer.

8. I then adjourned sentence to today for a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report.

9. I have the report before me.  I do not intend to repeat its contents.  I have been told that they are accurate and agreed by the defendant.

10. The medical officer is of the opinion that the defendant is not a drug addict and, therefore, not suitable for admission to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

11. From the report and from mitigation on the last occasion, I was told the defendant in 2012 experienced marital problems and some financial problems.

12. He also came into contact with what can only be described as “bad peers”.  This led him to try “Ice” in August 2012.  He said this was because he was under stress from all his problems.  Thereafter, he took the drug intermittently.

13. He was arrested for this offence not long after.

14. The defendant has been on bail since his arrest and told the medical officer that whilst on bail he stayed away from drugs.  This would be supported by the medical officer’s opinion that he is presently not a drug addict.

15. The defendant’s family’s letters of mitigation portray him as a responsible husband, father and son.  He has three children who are all students, ranging from the ages of 12 to 15.  Both his parents live in Hong Kong and are not of good health.  I have seen some medical reports submitted on their behalf.

16. As much as can be said has been said in mitigation.

17. With this quantity of what is a seriously dangerous drug, in my view, a term of imprisonment is appropriate.

18. Defence counsel today has asked the court to consider a suspended sentence or a community service order.

19. With this quantity of this particular drug, I do not find these options appropriate.

20. Of course, what is very relevant when considering a starting point for a term of imprisonment is the fact the defendant had a clear record and his plea and the fact he is drug-free now. 

21. At the same time, I found the latent risk a factor here and I looked at two authorities in particular:  HKSAR v Wan Sheung Shum [2000] 1 HKLRD 405 and HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC 261.

22. This defendant had this quantity of “Ice” on the street on his person.  In addition, he had paraphernalia on his person to take the dangerous drugs and also it would be possible for others to take the dangerous drugs.

23. Mr Woon has addressed me on the latent risk.

24. I find there to be a risk of dissemination of “Ice”, but there is no evidence that the risk was of any real gravity.

25. Where Charge 3 is concerned, because of the positive factors such as those I have mentioned - his clear record and plea - when considered in conjunction with the facts of the case, the quantity of the “Ice” and the seriousness of this particular drug - Defendant, please stand up - for Charge 3, I find a starting point of 12 months appropriate.

26. I enhance this by 3 months to reflect the latent risk of dissemination of “Ice”.

27. That would make a starting point of 15 months.

28. The defendant has pleaded guilty.  He is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea.

29. For Charge 3, the defendant is sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.

30. For Charge 2, the facts are not the most serious facts for an offence of this nature and I impose a 2-week term of imprisonment, to be served concurrently with Charge 3.

31. That is a total of 10 months’ imprisonment.

COURT: Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.