HKSAR v. Chow Fai

DCCC 909/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 909 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant admitted to trafficking in 30.02 grammes of a solid containing 18.07 grammes of ketamine.

2.In the evening of 8 August 2016, the defendant was sitting at a table with two men in a restaurant in Mong Kok, with a rucksack in front of his chest looking around furtively.  That aroused the suspicion of a group of police officers.  The officers went up to the defendant and took him to the toilet of the restaurant for a search. 

3.Inside the rucksack, the officers found the drugs in question which were put in 43 small resealable plastic bags within 5 plastic bags.  The defendant was arrested for the offence of trafficking.

4.Under caution, the defendant stated that he just started working and had only sold one packet of “K Chai”. 

5.The street value of the drugs seized is estimated to be slightly less than $4,000.

6.The defendant, aged 27, has one previous conviction. In July 2012 for the offence of AOABH, he was given a probation order for a period of 18 months. 

7.The defendant was educated up to Form 3 level.  The court was told that he was a salesman in telephone services at the time of the offence and contributed $3,000 to support his family.  He is single, lives with his parents in Mong Kok area. 

8.A letter from his friend, Miss Ho, tells the court that the defendant is a hardworking man, the sole breadwinner of the family and becomes a Christian after joining a voluntary drug rehabilitation centre.

9.Counsel submitted that the defendant is a drug dependant.  He takes a few grammes of ketamine a day.  As far as the drugs in this case are concerned, counsel said half of those were for the defendant’s own consumption. 

10.I have indicated to counsel that on the information before the court, I am not prepared to accept that claim of part self-consumption but would be happy to hear further evidence to decide the issue, but counsel said there would be no further evidence.

11.On the facts before the court, at the time of being stopped in the restaurant, the defendant was engaging in selling drugs.  He even said under caution he just started working and only sold one packet.  If half of the drugs were for his own self-consumption, I would expect him to separate them from those that he was going to sell to others.  He must have known that in case he was caught by the police, he would be charged with trafficking for the whole lot and that would mean a much longer sentence.

12.And for this reason, I would not expect him to bring along those drugs which he said for his own consumption when he was engaging in trafficking activities.  He would at least conceal them somewhere such as hiding it in his home especially when he lived nearby; he lives in Mong Kok. 

13.So on the information before the court, I reject his claim of part self-consumption.  I would therefore proceed to sentence him on the basis that he trafficked in the whole amount of drugs as particularized in the charge. 

14.There are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence.  Trafficking an amount between 10 to 50 grammes, a term of 4 to 6 years to be considered. For the amount of drugs in this case, I take 4 years and 3 months as a starting point.

15.Apart from his guilty plea, there is not anything of substance which would justify a further reduction in sentence.  I reduce the starting point to 34 months to reflect his plea and there being no reason for further reduction, he is sentenced to 34 months’ imprisonment.