HKSAR v. Chau Chi Pun

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 324/2014 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 April 2015.

Case No.HCCC 324/2014
Court
High Court CFI
Date14 Apr 2015
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC 324/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 324 OF 2014

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  CHAU Chi-pun  

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

Before: Hon Andrew Chan J
Date: 14 April 2015 at 10.04 am
Present: Mr Christopher Grounds, on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Chui Fook-leung, Steve, instructed by Alan Ho & Co, assigned by DLA, for the accused
Offence: (1) Manufacture of a dangerous drug (製造危險藥物)
(2) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

The Summary of Facts reveals the following facts. On the material day, the defendant was intercepted by police officers. Two packets of suspected dangerous drug were found inside pockets of one jacket that the defendant was wearing at the time. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was requested by one Ho Lok to deliver the suspected dangerous drug and that he was, at the time, in financial difficulty.

The Government Chemist later confirmed the suspected dangerous drug to be 225.81 grammes of cocaine. The street value was estimated to be approximately HK$460,000.

The defendant is 19 and has a clear record. He received education up to form 3 level and was unemployed before his arrest.

Guidelines on sentencing are clear. The starting point for trafficking in 225 grammes of cocaine is one of 12 years’ imprisonment.

The defendant is young but not within the extreme youth category. His motive for committing the present offence is nothing other than greed. Apart from the defendant’s plea, there is little in his mitigation that can warrant any further reduction.

In conclusion, for the offence the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.