A A
DCCC587/2011
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C CRIMINAL CASE NO. 587 OF 2011 C
D
---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v.
F Wong Ka-chun F
G ----------------------- G
Before: Deputy District Judge Joseph To
H Date: 14 September 2011 at 10.23 am H
Present: Ms Barbara Wong, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Andrew Allman-Brown, instructed by Messrs
I Littlewoods, for the Defendant I
Offence: (1) & (2) Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)
J (3) Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the J
inhalation of a dangerous drug (管有適合於及擬用作吸服危險
藥物的器具)
K K
(4) Possession of a prohibited weapon (管有違禁武器)
(5) Assaulting a police officer in an execution of
L duty (襲擊執行職責的警務人員) L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N N
---------------------
O O
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to the following five
P P
charges, namely,
1) and 2) Possession of a dangerous drug, preferred against
Q Q
him under section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs
R Ordinance, Cap.134; R
S 3) Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the S
inhalation of a dangerous drug, laid against him pursuant
T T
to section 36(1) and (2) of the same Ordinance,
U U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 1 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
4) Possession of a prohibited weapon, contrary to section 4
of the Weapons Ordinance, Cap.217, and
B B
C 5) Assaulting a police officer in execution of duty, C
brought against him under section 63 of the Police Force
D Ordinance, Cap.232. D
E E
2. The facts to which the defendant agrees are as follows.
On the evening in question, a team of police officers laid in
F F
ambush at a location outside the defendant’s flat in a public
G housing estate, and when the defendant appeared at the lift G
lobby, the officers intercepted him for enquiry.
H H
3. The officers found in the defendant’s immediate
I I
possession nothing of a suspicious character. They escorted him
to his flat to execute a search warrant. The defendant became
J J
emotional and, with his right forearm, bumped into a police
K
officer causing him to hit against the wall. The defendant K
became uncontrollable. He yelled and banged his head against the
L wall. Other officers subdued him. L
M 4. A search was conducted in the defendant’s flat. Inside M
a toy car were found a total of 10 plastic bags containing the
N N
dangerous drug commonly called “Ice”. There were a large number
of resealable plastic bags in the cabinet of the living room. On
O O
the desk inside the defendant’s bedroom were two other plastic
P bags of “Ice”, eight plastic bags of “Ice” concealed inside two P
screw-drivers, two inhaling devices with traces of “Ice” in
Q them, one electronic scale, and one extendable baton. Q
R R
5. Under caution, the defendant admitted that all the
drugs and the inhaling devices found in his flat belonged to
S S
him, and explained he put the drugs inside the toy car and the
T screwdrivers to hide them from his father. He used the T
electronic scale and plastic bags, he said, to control the
U quantity of his drug intake. Finally, he admitted having U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 2 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
purchased the extendable baton a long time ago when he went
travelling on the Mainland.
B B
C 6. The “Ice” seized in this case was subsequently C
confirmed to be 3.47 grammes of a crystalline solid containing
D 3.30 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. In the inhaling D
devices was found a liquid containing 0.15 grammes of
E E
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The extendable baton was a
prohibited weapon within the meaning of the Weapons Ordinance.
F F
Finally, the police officer whom the defendant assaulted was
G found to have sustained minor abrasions on the right wrist and G
ring finger.
H H
7. The court finds the defendant guilty of the five
I I
charges. The defendant has had a total of nine criminal records,
eight of which related to offences under the Dangerous Drugs
J J
Ordinance. He has been sent to the DATC on five occasions.
K K
8. According to the DATC report, the defendant was born in
Hong Kong and is 33 years old. He has attained Form 3 level and
L L
has worked as a waiter, a shampoo boy, a garage apprentice, a
M carpenter, a transport worker, a packer, and, at the time of his M
arrest, a decoration worker. He is single, and is living with
N his aged father, a retiree. Under the bad influence of some N
undesirable peers, the defendant started consuming heroin at the
O O
age of 16, and despite numerous attempts to rid himself of the
vice habit, he has not succeeded to do so.
P P
Q 9. In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following Q
matters for the court’s consideration. Prior to his arrest, the
R defendant has been in gainful employment for almost a year R
making a respectable income. The defence submits, and this is
S S
not disputed by the prosecution, the several exhibits seized in
the defendant’s bedroom constituted one single apparatus for
T T
inhaling “Ice”. The defence therefore urges the court to
U consider the first three charges ensemble. U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 3 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
10. A number of District Court decisions have been cited to
this court, demonstrating a range of sentences for the offence
B B
of possession of “Ice” between 9 weeks and 15 months. As to the
C charges of possession of prohibited weapons and of assaulting a C
police officer, other District Court Judges have sentenced
D defendants variously to imprisonment for weeks only, but in a D
case in which this court has passed sentence on the charge of
E E
assaulting a police officer, a starting point of 3 months was
chosen.
F F
11. Finally, the defence hands up a photograph of the
G G
extendable baton to show that it has never been used, in support
of the defence submission that the defendant has had no
H H
intention of using it.
I I
Discussion
J 12. The defence has put forward comparable cases for the J
court’s consideration. In respect of the charges under
K K
consideration, the court is of the view that each case depends
on its own fact. Consideration must be given to each defendant’s
L L
situation and mitigation.
M M
13. Drug abuse poses a constant threat to the well-being of
N the society. It causes disruption to families, and brings about N
crimes, ad hoc and organised. It damages a person, sometimes
O O
beyond hope and repair. Even those who have successfully fought
and overcome their addiction, their personalities and emotional
P P
make-up are in most cases marred for life; employment
Q opportunities for them are very often limited; and prospects of Q
their reintegration into the society are grim. What often awaits
R drug addicts and ex-drug addicts is extreme poverty over R
sustained periods and a life without self-esteem. The defendant
S S
in the present case has been sent to the DATC on five occasions.
His experience demonstrates how harmful and destructive to a
T T
person’s life the abuse of dangerous drugs can be.
U U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 4 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
14. “Ice” is a hard drug which can be produced cheaply. It
is highly addictive, and once addicted, the habit is difficult
B B
to lose. In some regards it is even more harmful than heroin.
C Hong Kong courts have recognised this fact and have provided a C
sentence guideline between 12 and 18 months for bona fide users
D of this drug and heroin (see HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC D
261).
E E
15. In the instant case, the defendant’s records show
F beyond doubt that he is a recidivist. The amount of drugs F
involved in this case is not particularly small. Given the
G G
number of plastic bags and other paraphernalia seized in this
case, there is a latent risk that the drugs may be shared with
H H
others.
I I
16. The court is of the view that a starting point of
J 15 months should be adopted on account of the amount of drugs J
seized and of the fact that the defendant is a recidivist. This
K should be enhanced to one of 18 months on account of the latent K
risk.
L L
17. The defendant had two inhaling devices but was charged
M M
with the possession of one of them. The fact that the police
N have seized two such devices is ignored. A starting point of N
3 months’ imprisonment is in order.
O O
18. The mere possession of a prohibited weapon is made an
P offence in Hong Kong for obvious reasons. The weapon can fall P
into the wrong hands or can be used in the commission of
Q Q
offences involving violence and injuries to others. How easily
the prohibited weapon can be concealed and how deadly it is when
R R
used in offences of violence, as well as the circumstances of
S its seizure, are all relevant in the determination of a proper S
sentence. The court notes that an extendable baton is a rather
T dangerous weapon. A direct blow can cause grievous bodily harm. T
In the circumstance of this case, the court is of the view that
U U
a starting point of six months is appropriate.
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 5 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
19. Hong Kong adheres to the rule of law. Its success as a
B B
world financial and commercial centre depends on it. Assaulting
C a police officer represents a direct challenge to this essential C
quality of Hong Kong life, and a deterrent sentence is called
D for. In this case, the police officer the defendant assaulted D
has suffered minor injuries. A starting point of three months’
E E
imprisonment is warranted.
F F
20. Apart from his guilty pleas, nothing in the defendant’s
G personal and family circumstances would warrant any further G
discount.
H H
Conclusion
I I
21. In the result, the court adopts a starting point of
18 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1, which is reduced by one-
J J
third on account of the defendant’s guilty plea to one of
K
12 months’ imprisonment. K
L 22. In respect of Charge 2, a starting point of 12 months L
is appropriate, which is likewise reduced by one-third to one of
M eight months’ imprisonment. M
N 23. The starting point for Charge 3 should be three months’ N
imprisonment. It should be reduced by one-third to two months.
O O
24. The appropriate starting point for Charge 4 is six
P months, which is reduced to one of four months’ imprisonment. P
Q 25. Finally, a starting point of three months is adopted Q
for Charge 5, which is reduced to two months’ imprisonment.
R R
26. The court has considered the totality principle and
S S
orders that the sentences for Charges 1, 2 and 3 should be
T served concurrently, resulting in a sentence of 12 months’ T
imprisonment.
U U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 6 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
27. One month of the sentence for Charge 5 should run
consecutively to the four months for Charge 4, making a total
B B
sentence for the two charges one of five months’ imprisonment,
C and four months of the sentence for Charges 4 and 5 should run C
consecutively to the 12 months’ imprisonment for Charges 1, 2
D and 3, resulting in a final sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment. D
E 28. The court considers that in the defendant’s E
circumstances, an effective starting point of 2 years’
F imprisonment would adequately reflect the criminality of the F
five charges.
G G
Order
H H
29. The defendant is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.
I I
J J
K K
L L
(Joseph To)
Deputy District Judge
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 7 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC587/2011
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C CRIMINAL CASE NO. 587 OF 2011 C
D
---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v.
F Wong Ka-chun F
G ----------------------- G
Before: Deputy District Judge Joseph To
H Date: 14 September 2011 at 10.23 am H
Present: Ms Barbara Wong, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Andrew Allman-Brown, instructed by Messrs
I Littlewoods, for the Defendant I
Offence: (1) & (2) Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)
J (3) Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the J
inhalation of a dangerous drug (管有適合於及擬用作吸服危險
藥物的器具)
K K
(4) Possession of a prohibited weapon (管有違禁武器)
(5) Assaulting a police officer in an execution of
L duty (襲擊執行職責的警務人員) L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N N
---------------------
O O
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to the following five
P P
charges, namely,
1) and 2) Possession of a dangerous drug, preferred against
Q Q
him under section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs
R Ordinance, Cap.134; R
S 3) Possession of apparatus fit and intended for the S
inhalation of a dangerous drug, laid against him pursuant
T T
to section 36(1) and (2) of the same Ordinance,
U U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 1 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
4) Possession of a prohibited weapon, contrary to section 4
of the Weapons Ordinance, Cap.217, and
B B
C 5) Assaulting a police officer in execution of duty, C
brought against him under section 63 of the Police Force
D Ordinance, Cap.232. D
E E
2. The facts to which the defendant agrees are as follows.
On the evening in question, a team of police officers laid in
F F
ambush at a location outside the defendant’s flat in a public
G housing estate, and when the defendant appeared at the lift G
lobby, the officers intercepted him for enquiry.
H H
3. The officers found in the defendant’s immediate
I I
possession nothing of a suspicious character. They escorted him
to his flat to execute a search warrant. The defendant became
J J
emotional and, with his right forearm, bumped into a police
K
officer causing him to hit against the wall. The defendant K
became uncontrollable. He yelled and banged his head against the
L wall. Other officers subdued him. L
M 4. A search was conducted in the defendant’s flat. Inside M
a toy car were found a total of 10 plastic bags containing the
N N
dangerous drug commonly called “Ice”. There were a large number
of resealable plastic bags in the cabinet of the living room. On
O O
the desk inside the defendant’s bedroom were two other plastic
P bags of “Ice”, eight plastic bags of “Ice” concealed inside two P
screw-drivers, two inhaling devices with traces of “Ice” in
Q them, one electronic scale, and one extendable baton. Q
R R
5. Under caution, the defendant admitted that all the
drugs and the inhaling devices found in his flat belonged to
S S
him, and explained he put the drugs inside the toy car and the
T screwdrivers to hide them from his father. He used the T
electronic scale and plastic bags, he said, to control the
U quantity of his drug intake. Finally, he admitted having U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 2 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
purchased the extendable baton a long time ago when he went
travelling on the Mainland.
B B
C 6. The “Ice” seized in this case was subsequently C
confirmed to be 3.47 grammes of a crystalline solid containing
D 3.30 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. In the inhaling D
devices was found a liquid containing 0.15 grammes of
E E
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The extendable baton was a
prohibited weapon within the meaning of the Weapons Ordinance.
F F
Finally, the police officer whom the defendant assaulted was
G found to have sustained minor abrasions on the right wrist and G
ring finger.
H H
7. The court finds the defendant guilty of the five
I I
charges. The defendant has had a total of nine criminal records,
eight of which related to offences under the Dangerous Drugs
J J
Ordinance. He has been sent to the DATC on five occasions.
K K
8. According to the DATC report, the defendant was born in
Hong Kong and is 33 years old. He has attained Form 3 level and
L L
has worked as a waiter, a shampoo boy, a garage apprentice, a
M carpenter, a transport worker, a packer, and, at the time of his M
arrest, a decoration worker. He is single, and is living with
N his aged father, a retiree. Under the bad influence of some N
undesirable peers, the defendant started consuming heroin at the
O O
age of 16, and despite numerous attempts to rid himself of the
vice habit, he has not succeeded to do so.
P P
Q 9. In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following Q
matters for the court’s consideration. Prior to his arrest, the
R defendant has been in gainful employment for almost a year R
making a respectable income. The defence submits, and this is
S S
not disputed by the prosecution, the several exhibits seized in
the defendant’s bedroom constituted one single apparatus for
T T
inhaling “Ice”. The defence therefore urges the court to
U consider the first three charges ensemble. U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 3 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
10. A number of District Court decisions have been cited to
this court, demonstrating a range of sentences for the offence
B B
of possession of “Ice” between 9 weeks and 15 months. As to the
C charges of possession of prohibited weapons and of assaulting a C
police officer, other District Court Judges have sentenced
D defendants variously to imprisonment for weeks only, but in a D
case in which this court has passed sentence on the charge of
E E
assaulting a police officer, a starting point of 3 months was
chosen.
F F
11. Finally, the defence hands up a photograph of the
G G
extendable baton to show that it has never been used, in support
of the defence submission that the defendant has had no
H H
intention of using it.
I I
Discussion
J 12. The defence has put forward comparable cases for the J
court’s consideration. In respect of the charges under
K K
consideration, the court is of the view that each case depends
on its own fact. Consideration must be given to each defendant’s
L L
situation and mitigation.
M M
13. Drug abuse poses a constant threat to the well-being of
N the society. It causes disruption to families, and brings about N
crimes, ad hoc and organised. It damages a person, sometimes
O O
beyond hope and repair. Even those who have successfully fought
and overcome their addiction, their personalities and emotional
P P
make-up are in most cases marred for life; employment
Q opportunities for them are very often limited; and prospects of Q
their reintegration into the society are grim. What often awaits
R drug addicts and ex-drug addicts is extreme poverty over R
sustained periods and a life without self-esteem. The defendant
S S
in the present case has been sent to the DATC on five occasions.
His experience demonstrates how harmful and destructive to a
T T
person’s life the abuse of dangerous drugs can be.
U U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 4 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
14. “Ice” is a hard drug which can be produced cheaply. It
is highly addictive, and once addicted, the habit is difficult
B B
to lose. In some regards it is even more harmful than heroin.
C Hong Kong courts have recognised this fact and have provided a C
sentence guideline between 12 and 18 months for bona fide users
D of this drug and heroin (see HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC D
261).
E E
15. In the instant case, the defendant’s records show
F beyond doubt that he is a recidivist. The amount of drugs F
involved in this case is not particularly small. Given the
G G
number of plastic bags and other paraphernalia seized in this
case, there is a latent risk that the drugs may be shared with
H H
others.
I I
16. The court is of the view that a starting point of
J 15 months should be adopted on account of the amount of drugs J
seized and of the fact that the defendant is a recidivist. This
K should be enhanced to one of 18 months on account of the latent K
risk.
L L
17. The defendant had two inhaling devices but was charged
M M
with the possession of one of them. The fact that the police
N have seized two such devices is ignored. A starting point of N
3 months’ imprisonment is in order.
O O
18. The mere possession of a prohibited weapon is made an
P offence in Hong Kong for obvious reasons. The weapon can fall P
into the wrong hands or can be used in the commission of
Q Q
offences involving violence and injuries to others. How easily
the prohibited weapon can be concealed and how deadly it is when
R R
used in offences of violence, as well as the circumstances of
S its seizure, are all relevant in the determination of a proper S
sentence. The court notes that an extendable baton is a rather
T dangerous weapon. A direct blow can cause grievous bodily harm. T
In the circumstance of this case, the court is of the view that
U U
a starting point of six months is appropriate.
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 5 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
19. Hong Kong adheres to the rule of law. Its success as a
B B
world financial and commercial centre depends on it. Assaulting
C a police officer represents a direct challenge to this essential C
quality of Hong Kong life, and a deterrent sentence is called
D for. In this case, the police officer the defendant assaulted D
has suffered minor injuries. A starting point of three months’
E E
imprisonment is warranted.
F F
20. Apart from his guilty pleas, nothing in the defendant’s
G personal and family circumstances would warrant any further G
discount.
H H
Conclusion
I I
21. In the result, the court adopts a starting point of
18 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1, which is reduced by one-
J J
third on account of the defendant’s guilty plea to one of
K
12 months’ imprisonment. K
L 22. In respect of Charge 2, a starting point of 12 months L
is appropriate, which is likewise reduced by one-third to one of
M eight months’ imprisonment. M
N 23. The starting point for Charge 3 should be three months’ N
imprisonment. It should be reduced by one-third to two months.
O O
24. The appropriate starting point for Charge 4 is six
P months, which is reduced to one of four months’ imprisonment. P
Q 25. Finally, a starting point of three months is adopted Q
for Charge 5, which is reduced to two months’ imprisonment.
R R
26. The court has considered the totality principle and
S S
orders that the sentences for Charges 1, 2 and 3 should be
T served concurrently, resulting in a sentence of 12 months’ T
imprisonment.
U U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 6 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V
A A
27. One month of the sentence for Charge 5 should run
consecutively to the four months for Charge 4, making a total
B B
sentence for the two charges one of five months’ imprisonment,
C and four months of the sentence for Charges 4 and 5 should run C
consecutively to the 12 months’ imprisonment for Charges 1, 2
D and 3, resulting in a final sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment. D
E 28. The court considers that in the defendant’s E
circumstances, an effective starting point of 2 years’
F imprisonment would adequately reflect the criminality of the F
five charges.
G G
Order
H H
29. The defendant is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.
I I
J J
K K
L L
(Joseph To)
Deputy District Judge
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT27/14.9.2011/TS/lt 7 DCCC587/2011/Sentence
V V