HKSAR v. SO KIM YI

DCCC 554/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.554 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence(D1)

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

1. This reasons for sentence deals only with D1.

2.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge (Charge 2) of possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to s.8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

Facts

3.  The defendant was observed by Police officer loading 12 pots of cannabis plants into a car on the charge date. The defendant was intercepted, arrested and cautioned. The defendant admitted under caution that the plants in the trunk of his car were cannabis.

4.  The defendant then led Police officers to a 2 storey village hut in Yuen Long where it was discovered that it was a cannabis cultivation facility.

5.  In a subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant said under caution that he had used the hut for keeping dogs but had at another person’s request let out the hut to that person’s brother for $3,000. The defendant found out about 1 month ago that the other person was using the hut to grow cannabis. The defendant had taken the 12 pots of cannabis in order to try some.

6.  The 12 pots of cannabis plants were examined by the Government Chemist who certified that they had a total weight of 11.16g of cannabis.

Previous convictions

7.  The defendant was of clear record.

Mitigation

8.  The defendant is 36 years old. At the invitation of his counsel, a Probation Officer’s report was called for prior to sentence. The report is a favourable one, showing the defendant as a hardworking and talented dog breeder who was going through some difficulties around the time of the commission of the offence.

Sentence

9.  There are no sentencing guidelines for the possession of cannabis plants. The defendant is charged with simple possession of the plants and its cannabis contents and this court will only sentence him on the facts that he had admitted to when he pleaded guilty to the charge.

10.  I was told by defence counsel that the cannabis contents of the plants would make about 2 cigarettes’ after processing.

11.  Had the defendant been found in possession of the plants alone without the subsequent discovery of the cultivation facilities, it is most likely that he will be prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court and would then have been dealt with by way of a fine or a probation order. The only reason why he is now in the District Court is because of the other charges that the other defendant, his brother, is facing in the case.

12.  On the facts as admitted, I see no basis to sentence this defendant differently than if he had been dealt with in the magistracies.

13.  Having read the Probation Officer’s report, which I find very helpful, I will accept the recommendation of the Probation Officer and sentence the defendant to 18 months’ probation with the usual mandatory conditions plus the 2 special conditions set out in the report, which is that the defendant must abstain from dangerous drugs and that he shall undergo random urine tests as and when directed by the supervising probation officer.