HKSAR v. Ho Chi Fai

DCCC 367/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 367 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.After trial, the defendant was convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.Before the trial commenced, the defendant had indicated his plea to the offence of simple possession.

3.The facts of the case are straightforward. The defendant, who was living in Tuen Mun, claimed that he bought the drugs so seized in Tsuen Wan.  He then took a taxi to go to Tin Shui Wai to look for his casual friend, Tsz Tan.  That was about 2 am on the day.

4.When the defendant was intercepted outside the flat, he shouted loudly, “There are bad people”.  The defendant was later taken to the staircase on the same floor of the flat, where a body search was conducted.  The police found the drugs on the defendant.

5.The defendant, under caution at the scene, admitted that, “Those four packs of ‘K chai’ in the laisee packet were all for my consumption”.  The defendant made similar admission in the video-recorded interview.  The defendant has cash, $1,420, and a mobile phone on him.

6.The estimated street value of the drugs was $3,084.

Mitigation

7.There were virtually no mitigating factors put forward by the defendant.  Defence counsel tendered a letter from Mr Wong of Permanent Deacons Office dated 31 July 2016 which, in my view, served no purpose at all.  When asked, defence counsel said the drugs involved in the Court of First Instance case back in 2011 was “Ice”.

8.The defendant is now aged 36 and was born in Macau.  He obtained the education level of Form 2 and had no regular employment.  He was a part-time decoration worker.

9.The defendant was last discharged from Tai Lam Correction Institution on 2 November 2015.  Apparently the defendant did not learn any lesson despite his heavy conviction record.  Within about three and a half months after his last discharge, the defendant committed the present offence.  He had 40 convictions, out of which five were drug-related.  Soon after serving his 5½ years’ imprisonment term for a High Court case in June 2011, the defendant committed another drugs offence in April 2015, for which he was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.  And there now comes the latest drug-trafficking offence.

Sentence

10.In normal circumstances, trafficking in ketamine with 10 grammes to 50 grammes will attract 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

11.I cannot find any mitigating factors from the mitigation submission.

12.The present offence involved 14.57 grammes of ketamine.  Taking all factors into consideration and the fact that the defendant has agreed most of the prosecution case, I adopt a term of 4 years and 2 months as the starting point.

13.I would give credit for the defendant’s admission of most of the prosecution case and his early indication of the plea to simple possession, which may well be a tactical move.

14.Accordingly, I reduce the sentence by 2 months, and sentence him to 4 years’ imprisonment.