HKSAR v. SHAH RAKHIM

 DCCC359/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 359 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134, Laws of Hong Kong, the particulars being that on 7 December of last year, inside Room 1, 8th Floor, Hong Kong Construction Association Building, No. 182 Hennessy Road, you unlawfully trafficked in an assortment of drugs named in the charge, including quantities of cannabis, both resin and herbal form, ketamine, “Ice,” cocaine and heroin.

2.  The Brief Facts are extremely straightforward and indicate that on the day in question, you were intercepted by a team of police officers after you had left the premises. You were taken back where a search was conducted and the drugs discovered. Also found was typical drug-trafficking paraphernalia in the form of electronic scales, resealable plastic bags and adhesive tape. Incidentally, I do not accept the assertion that you gave to the police at the time that the drugs found in the premises being the subject matter of the charge were for your own consumption. It is a charge of trafficking that you have pleaded guilty to, and it is on that basis that I propose to sentence you.

3.  You are 31 years of age and have five previous convictions, all of them drug-related. I am told that you are presently serving a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment imposed on you for another drug-related offence.

4.  With regard to the present charge, this court is dealing with a cocktail of different substances of varying degrees of quantity, some small, some not so small. But I accept from your counsel that the proper approach to sentence is to adopt the combined approach rather than the individual approach.

5.  Included in the drugs that were found in your premises were 5.21 grammes of “Ice.” Had these been the only drugs found, I would have adopted a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment pursuant to the guidelines contained in Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125. However, amongst other substances also found in your premises were 3.75 grammes of cocaine, 2.01 grammes of heroin, over 11 grammes of ketamine and 278.26 grammes of cannabis resin.

6.  Taking a global approach therefore, I propose to adjust what would have been my starting point of 5 years to take into account these significant quantities of other drugs, leading me to adopt the higher starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment. I would discount this by one-third to take account of your plea of guilty which is the only realistic mitigation, arriving at a sentence of 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. This sentence, obviously, is to run consecutively to the sentence that you are presently serving.