HKSAR v. FUNG SIU FONG

DCCC751/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 751 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The 1st defendant in this case, Madam Fung Siu-fong, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of possession of dangerous drugs (Charge 1). During a house search on 22 April this year, the police officers involved in the house search found some drugs in the premises in question, namely, 20.25 grammes of N,N-dimethylamphetamine, 0.62 grammes of a mixture containing 0.41 gramme of heroin hydrochloride, one tablet fragment containing midazolam, 0.01 gramme of a powder containing heroin and 0.01 gramme of a powder containing heroin and methamphetamine.

2.  The defendant at the material time was the sole occupant of the premises in question.  She was arrested by the police.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that the drugs in question belonged to her and she used to take drugs by using the inhaling devices found in the premises.

3.  The defendant has six previous convictions. Three of them were drugs-related.  The defendant is currently being detained at the drug addiction treatment centre.  She was sentenced on 4 August this year by the Kwun Tong Magistracy.

4.  In this case, I called for a DATC report before sentence.  The DATC report sets out in details the addiction history of the defendant.  The defendant started sniffing ketamine in 1995.  She took “Ecstasy” and cannabis in 1996.  In 2006, the defendant started to abuse “Five Chai” and cocaine.  She also inhaled “Ice.”  According to the defendant, she spent about $100 on each occasion.  In 2009, the defendant started taking No. 4 heroin.

5.  The intake officer opines in the final paragraph of the report that in view of the defendant’s drug-taking behaviour, another term of compulsory abstinence treatment coupled with a period of statutory supervision is considered beneficial to the defendant.  And the medical officer opines that the defendant is a drug dependent and she is considered suitable for admission to a drug addiction treatment centre under a fresh order. 

6.  How effective a drug addiction treatment centre as a means of rehabilitation remains to be seen, but it seems to me it is the only sensible course to take.  Given the fact that the defendant is now serving a drug addiction treatment centre for KT5323/2008, I do not think I should disturb the treatment programme that the defendant is now receiving.  And given the small quantities of drugs involved in the present case, a fresh DATC order is appropriate.

7.  For the reasons given, I make a fresh DATC order, and conviction is recorded.