HKSAR v. KARTINI

DCCC 899/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 899 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of inhalation of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(b) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

2.  You admitted that between 1 and 2 July 2013, you inhaled a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine, otherwise commonly referred to as “Ice”.

3.  On 3 July 2013, the police were conducting an anti‑dangerous drugs operation in the area of the flat at Yee Tai Building on the 9th Floor, Wan Chai.  At about 5.40 pm the police officers saw you leaving that flat.  When the police tried to intercept you, you fled back into the flat.  The police then entered that flat and intercepted you.

4.  The flat was a multi-cubicle apartment.  You told the police that you lived at Room 4 of the flat.  You were then taken to that room, and inside that room were two females.

5.  One of the things found in that flat was an inhaling device.  This device was an inhaling device for “Ice”.  You admitted to the police that you had inhaled “Ice” the day before with a friend of yours called Anna.  You had purchased the drugs from one of the girls who was then in your room for $200 or $300.

6.  The inhaling device at the time contained 6 millilitres of liquid containing traces of “Ice”.

7.  Defendant, you are 30 years of age.  You are Indonesian, and have one previous conviction for an offence of breach of condition of stay, to which you were sentenced to 1 month’s imprisonment suspended for 2 years on 26 June 2012.  At the time of commission of this offence, you were therefore in breach of your suspended sentence.

8.  As way of background as to why you are in Hong Kong, you were originally here as a domestic helper.  However, your contract of employment with your employer was prematurely terminated in February 2012.  You were required to return to Indonesia or depart from Hong Kong within two weeks of the termination of your contract.  However, you overstayed.  Therefore, in June you were arrested by the police for the offence of your breach of condition of stay.  A removal order was made against you on 4 July 2012.  On 21 July 2012, you were released on recognisance pending a removal arrangement.  Meanwhile, you lived in Wan Chai with your friends and relied on financial assistance from the International Social Services.

9.  Whilst on recognisance, you were to report every six weeks to the Immigration Department.  You reported regularly until January 2013, when you stopped or failed to report to the Immigration Department as required.  Thereafter, you were arrested for this present offence.

10.  Mr Dickson Pang, your solicitor, has mitigated fully and thoroughly on your behalf before me on the last occasion and today.

11.  Prior to sentencing you I called for a drug addiction treatment centre report.  The medical officer is of the opinion that you are drug dependent, and there is a place available for you at the drug addiction treatment centre.  However, the Commissioner of Correctional Services considers you unsuitable for admission to the treatment centre.  This is principally because the drug addiction treatment centre requires a one‑year statutory supervision after you have served your time at the centre.  As it is likely that you will be deported, it will be impractical therefore to administer the one-year statutory supervision.  The programme would therefore be truncated by the absence of statutory supervision.

12.  Mr Pang has pointed out, as has the drug addiction treatment centre report, that you have only tried or taken “Ice” on two occasions; that is, on 1 and 2 July respectively.  He submits that you are not drug dependent as you have only taken drugs on two occasions and had done so only for fun.  Mr Pang has submitted to me a number of cases, and one particular case was R v Wong Chi Yuen HCMA 22/1997, where the courts laid out that the principle to be derived is that inhalation of a dangerous drug is no different from possession of a dangerous drug in terms of the seriousness of the offence where the usual sentence for possession of a dangerous drug after plea is a starting point of between 9 to 12 months’ imprisonment.

13.  He also submitted to me the cases of HKSAR v Tam Wing Yee Wasabi DCCC 1220/2001, HKSAR v Limbu Kargendra HCMA 111/2011, and HKSAR v Gobi Chan Mei Yun DCCC 245/2010.

14.  It appears from the cases cited that this case can be distinguished from them.  In your case, defendant, this is your first conviction related to dangerous drugs.  There were very small traces of dangerous drugs, and you had made admissions to this offence to the police.

15.  Defendant, due to the small traces of drugs found and this being your first drug offence, and the fact that you are unsuitable for treatment at the drug addiction treatment centre, I consider a short period of imprisonment to be appropriate.

16.  Had I convicted you after trial, I would have imposed a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, that term shall be reduced to 2 months’ imprisonment, to which you shall be so sentenced.

17.  Defendant, you are in breach of your suspended sentence.  In those circumstances, the suspended sentence shall be activated, and taking into account the principle of totality, I consider that this 2 months’ imprisonment should run consecutive to that 1 month’s imprisonment, making your total term of imprisonment to be 3 months’ imprisonment.