HKSAR v. Chan Kin Bun, Ben
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 295/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 September 2015.
|
HCCC 295/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 295 OF 2015 -----------------
--------------------------------- COURT: This defendantpleaded guilty at committal on 17 July 2015 to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, being 26.8 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 26.7 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”. He also pleaded guilty to a 2nd charge of possession of a smaller quantity of “Ice” being 6.28 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.23 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defendant confirmed his plead of guilty before me and also the facts to which he had pleaded guilty at committal. The facts were that the defendant was stopped and searched by police who were conducting a licence check at a hotel in Nathan Road. From his right-rear trouser pocket, police found four plastic bags of what was suspected to be and was later analysed as being methamphetamine hydrochloride. Two bags contained a total narcotic content of 26.7 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the subject of Charge 1; two bags contained a total narcotic quantity of 6.23 grammes which relates to Charge 2. When cautioned, the defendant stated that he had “towed the packet of ‘Ice’ for others”. In a video-recorded interview the defendant admitted the substance found was “Ice”. He was to deliver it to another person on instructions of a man “Ah Dee” whom he had known for a long time and who had given him the drugs. He met Ah Dee earlier that day and was given the drugs to deliver for a reward of HK$500. He told police that he had not received any reward. The estimated street value of the drugs was HK$14,092. The defendant admits and accepts that he possessed the 26.7 grammes of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking. The defendant has three previous entries on his criminal record which encompass five offences. Four of the five offences were drug-related. His first offence is possession of Part 1 poisons on 1 August 2003 for which he was fined. In February 2011 he was sentenced to 4 months for shoplifting. The sentence was suspended for 2 years. In July 2013 he was sentenced to 14 months in total for possession of a dangerous drug on two counts, and one count of possession of equipment for consuming dangerous drugs. He has no previous offences of trafficking. His antecedents statement revealed that he was aged 42. He was born on 6 October 1972. He was educated in Hong Kong to Standard 2 level. He told police he was a logistics officer at the time of his arrest. He is divorced. He has a habit of taking methamphetamine hydrochloride. In mitigation, Mr McGuinniety put before me a letter that was written by the defendant addressed to the court setting out in some detail his family background. He said he dropped out of school after finishing Standard 2 level because of the disadvantaged family background. He began to work to top-up the family income. Given his limited knowledge and lack of special skills he had all along been able to earn money only with physical labour. He fell into the bad habit of taking drugs in recent years. During the year that he has been remanded at Lai Chi Kok he says he has thoroughly reflected on himself and finally came to realise that he deserves punishment for what he has done. His girlfriend left him due to this offence. He says that he is truly grateful for the remand which enabled him to break away from bad habit. It also led him to make a thorough reflection on his future. He said he pleaded guiltybecause of his remorse. Mr McGuinniety urged on the court that this was not just a timely plea but an early plea, that there should be some distinction between the two which might result in a slightly lesser starting point, or some recognition that he had pleaded guiltyto the offences from the very beginning after the arrest. There is some justification in those submissions, and the matter is being examined, generally in terms of the one-third discount. However, at the present time the one‑third discount remains in place. In considering the sentence, I note the only real mitigation here, as so often, is the plea in mitigation. The guideline case of Ching Kwok Hung sets out the range of sentence. For a quantity of narcotics of 10 to 70 grammes, the sentencing range is 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. The quantity of narcotics in Charge 1 is 26.7 grammes. I adopt a starting point of 7 years in respect of that charge, and giving a one-third discount, I sentence the defendant to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1. On Charge 2, the narcotic quantity is 6.28 grammes. On the charge of possession, though less serious it involves a latent risk factor which justifies an enhanced sentence. Accordingly, I adopt a starting point of 9 months; add 3 months for the latent risk of an abuser’s own drug stash coming into the hands of others; give the one-third discount and I sentence the defendant to 8 months’ imprisonment. I order that the sentences on Charge 1 and 2 run concurrently. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||