|
DCCC 731/2012
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 731 OF 2012
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Rosel Padilla Jonie Jr (D1) |
|
----------------------
| Date:
|
31 December 2012 at 10.14 am
|
| Present:
|
Mr Kwong Cho-yan Simon, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
|
|
|
Mr Richard Mark Clement, of Massie & Clement, for the 1st defendant
|
| Offence:
|
Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)
|
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of possession of dangerous drugs. The drugs involved is 0.59 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”.
2. On the night of 7 June 2012, a team of police officers laid ambush outside a flat in the Metropole Building in North Point into the small hours, the defendant then appeared outside the flat and had a conversation with a woman. Later, the police stopped the defendant and conducted a search on him and found the drugs in question on his person.
3. The defendant, aged 28, has a previous conviction of possession of Part I Poison.
4. The court adjourned the matter to enable a DATC report to be prepared about the defendant. The report says he is a drug-dependant but because of his status, being an over-stayer, he is not recommended to go to the DATC.
5. For possession of dangerous drugs there are sentencing guidelines on the authority of Mo Cho Tik, CACC 165/2000, where the Court of Appeal said,
“We remain of the view that the starting point for mere possession of a quantity of dangerous drugs which a bona fide user would normally have in his possession should be in the range of 12 to 18 months, but that is not the be all and end all of the appropriate starting point. It assumes cases in which a sentence of imprisonment rather than a rehabilitative measure is deemed necessary and it does not seek to exclude magistrates from imposing lesser terms for very small quantities where the circumstances so warrant.”
6. And then the court went on to talk about the latent risk which will increase the starting point if found to exist and then reduce the sentence for mitigation.
7. On the facts before the court and having taken into account all the mitigation, I take 9 months as a starting point, and given the circumstances in which the drugs were found and the amount involved, I consider there existed no latent risk. As far as mitigation is concerned, apart from his guilty plea, there is not any mitigation of substance.
8. 9 months is reduced to 6 to reflect his plea, he is sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
|