HKSAR v. CHAN CHIN KAI, PHILIP

DCCC 138/2018

[2018] HKDC 1128

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 138 OF 2018

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of possession of 26.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 22.4 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance[1] and one charge of resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance[2].

2.  Full particulars of the offences are set out in the facts admitted by the defendant on 27 August 2018.  In summary at around 0559 hours on 22 October last year uniform police officers were patrolling on Cameron Road near the junction of Chatham Road South in Tsim Sha Tsui when they saw the defendant leaving No. 26 Cameron Road.  The defendant was walking in the direction of the police officers when he suddenly turned round and walked away at quick pace.

3.  After a short chase the police intercepted the defendant.  The defendant was shivering and touching the left front pocket of his trousers.  PC 17098 therefore requested to conduct a body search.  The defendant asked for a chance and tried to escape when PC 17098 started to conduct the search. 

4.  PC 17098 grabbed the defendant’s left arm while PC 19785 and PC 15110 assisted to help press the defendant on the ground.  The defendant kept on struggling as a result of which PC 19785 received a small abrasion and laceration on his left forearm[3].

5.  PC 17098 then conducted the body search.  Inside the left front pocket of the defendant’s trousers PC 17098 found two pieces of tissue paper, each wrapping a transparent re-sealable plastic bag containing the ketamine. 

6.  Under caution the defendant admitted that the two bags of ketamine were for his own consumption.     

Mitigation

7.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Ma, together with the mitigation letters written by the defendant’s parents.  I take into account the defendant is only 24 and has no prior drug convictions. 

DATC report

8.  By virtue of section 54A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance no sentence of imprisonment may be imposed for the offence of possession of a dangerous drug without first considering the suitability for cure and rehabilitation.

9.  The report reveals that owing to curiosity, weak will-power and repeated inducement from drug addicted friends, the defendant started to take ketamine in June 2016.  The defendant said he took ketamine twice a week and spent about $500 on drug consumption each time.

10.  In February this year the defendant started taking cocaine three times a week, spending about $1,200 on each occasion.  The defendant said he last took cocaine on 24 August 2018[4].  This is very different to what Mr Ma told the court in mitigation on 27 August 2018 that the defendant only casually used drugs. 

11.  The Assessment Officer states that the defendant appeared to be cooperative in revealing his drug addiction but lacked determination to abstain from taking drugs.  The defendant was reluctant to receive compulsory drug abstinence treatment in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and showed no sense of remorse and lacked insight into his problems.  Mr Ma tells the court that the defendant is remorseful.  This is also expressed in the letter from the parents.  

12.  The Medical Officer is of the opinion the defendant is a drug dependant and considered suitable for admission to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  The Assessment Officer is of the view that considering the defendant’s rehabilitative needs a period of compulsory treatment coupled with intensive statutory supervision would definitely be beneficial to him.  Mr Ma asks that I follow this recommendation. 

13.  Taking into account the circumstances of the case and having regard to the defendant’s character and previous conduct, I am satisfied that it is in the defendant’s interest and the public interest that the defendant should undergo a period of cure and rehabilitation in an addiction treatment centre.  The defendant is convicted and sentenced to detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  The conviction is recorded. 

Resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty

14.  Those who resist police officers in an attempt to evade arrest can expect to receive a short prison sentence.  The defendant having been sentenced to detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre for possession of drugs, a short prison sentence is not appropriate.  In the circumstances a concurrent sentence of detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre is appropriate. 

15.  The defendant is convicted and sentenced to detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  The conviction is recorded.