HKSAR v. Khan Changaz

HCCC 412/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 412 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant was convicted after trial before a jury for one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

On 13 March 2015, at around 12.55 midnight, the defendant was seen by two police officers sitting on the driver’s seat of a car parked at Minden Row, Tsim Sha Tsui. The defendant was the owner of the car. The police asked the defendant to alight from the car and conducted a search on him. Nothing illegal was found on him. Upon search of the car, a pink plastic bag was found and the pink plastic bag contained several tissue bags and plastic bags where dangerous drugs were found inside.

Subsequent examination by the Government Laboratory found out that there was, in total, 53.09 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 52.44 grammes of ‘Ice’ and 5.05 grammes of a solid containing 3.37 grammes of cocaine inside the pink plastic bag.

The defendant is 37 years old. He worked in a restaurant at the time he was arrested for the present offence. He is married and has a daughter of 3 years old.

He has two previous conviction records, both related to dangerous drugs. He was fined for possession of dangerous drugs in 2006 and sentenced for 5 years and 4 months for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2008.

Mr Bullett, counsel representing the defendant, handed in two letters written respectively by the defendant’s wife and father-in-law, in mitigation. They said in the letter that the defendant was the one who supported the whole family. They asked for leniency from the court. Mr Bullett submitted that the defendant had a genuine employment before his arrest and he worked very hard for his family. He urged this court to consider this in sentencing the defendant.

Trafficking in dangerous drugs is an extremely serious offence. People committing this offence will inevitably face a substantial term of imprisonment. The length of the imprisonment will depend mainly on the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved.

The Court of Appeal has laid down tariffs for the appropriate sentence in respect of different kinds of dangerous drugs with reference to the quantities of drugs involved. In HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, for trafficking in a quantity of 10 to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’, the starting point for sentence should be 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. In R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 and AG v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, for trafficking in a quantity of up to 10 grammes of cocaine, the starting point for sentence should be 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.

The tariffs laid down by the Court of Appeal are binding on this court. The heavy sentences imposed for these kind of offences is for deterrent purpose. Financial hardship faced by the defendant or his family is not a valid mitigating factor.

Considering the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved in the present case, that is 52.44 grammes, applying the tariff laid down by the Court of Appeal, the appropriate starting point for sentence should be 9 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. Regarding the cocaine, the appropriate starting point should be 3 years’ imprisonment.

However, in the present case, a combined approach should be adopted for the benefit of the defendant. Adding the quantity of cocaine involved to the quantity of ‘Ice’ involved, the quantity in total would be 55.81 grammes and adopting the tariff for ‘Ice’, the starting point to be adopted should be 10 years’ imprisonment.

There are special circumstances on the papers which justify a lenient sentence to be given to the defendant. The sentence is therefore reduced to 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

Although the defendant committed the same offence not long after his release from prison for trafficking in dangerous drugs, I am not prepared to enhance his sentence and this should be regarded as an extra leniency given to the defendant.

The defendant is sentenced to 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.