HKSAR v. Suen Kin Fai
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 136/2016 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 July 2017.
|
HCCC 136/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 136 OF 2016 -----------------
-----------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording --------------------------------- COURT: The defendant, Suen Kin-fai, is a 20-years-old young man with a hitherto clear record. He stands convicted after trial of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The offence took place on the 13th day of October 2015. It took place outside No 30 Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui. The offence concerned 46.8 grammes of a solid containing 41 grammes of cocaine. The defendant was a passenger on board a taxi. He occupied the front passenger seat. Together with two companions, the defendant travelled from Tsuen Wan to Tsim Sha Tsui and the destination was Eastern Flower Centre, Tsim Sha Tsui East. The taxi was stopped at a police road block. Directed by the police, the taxi driver pulled over the taxi at the side of the road. The defendant was asked to produce his ID card. The defendant, after he had produced his ID card to the police, bent his body forward and discarded the dangerous drugs under the front passenger seat. When the police officer was about to search the taxi, the taxi driver told the police officer that it was the defendant who had put some items down under the front passenger seat. The police found the cocaine in question and the defendant was arrested. Under caution, the defendant told the police that he carried the drugs to Tsim Sha Tsui East for a reward of $300. The drugs in question had a retail market value of $49,889 at the time. Mr Chui, in mitigation, drew my attention to the tariff set down by the Court of Appeal in Lau Tak Ming. He urged me to consider taking a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment, given the quantity of cocaine involved in this case was 41 grammes of cocaine. Mr Chui asked me to take into consideration the age of the defendant and the fact that he had a clear record. The defendant was 18 years old at the time. He is now 20. The defendant is not a person of extreme youth. The only mitigating factor that can be said in the defendant’s favour is that he is a young person of clear record. Applying the tariff as set down by the Court of Appeal in Lau Tak Ming, I adopt a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment. I shall give the defendant a reduction of 6 months because of his clear record. That will bring his sentence down to 78 months, i.e. 6½ years’ imprisonment. Apart from the clear record of the defendant, there is no other mitigating factor which can further reduce the sentence. For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 6½ years’ imprisonment.
|
