HKSAR v. Chan Chun Pan

HCCC 260/2018

[2019] HKCFI 721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 260 OF 2018

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

The defendant, who was carrying a cross-shoulder bag, was seen by police officers to be acting suspiciously. He was stopped and searched. A white bag containing four transparent resealable plastic bags of drugs were found inside the bag that he was carrying.

Under caution, he claimed that all the drugs were for his self-consumption. Upon analysis, the drugs were found to be 46.21 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 46.11 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The estimated retail value of the drugs was around HK$18,992.

Defendant is now aged 30. He has seven previous items of conviction with five related to possession of dangerous drugs. His last conviction was in June 2016 for possession of dangerous drugs and Part I poison. He was sentenced to the DATC. He committed the present offence whilst he was still under CSD supervision and subject to recall to DATC. I was told that he was actually already recalled to the DATC.

By way of mitigation, I was told that he has two sons from his previous relationship and one daughter with his present girlfriend. Prior to his arrest, he was a scaffolding worker earning about 15,000 to $20,000. I was told that on the day of his arrest, he had consumed ‘Ice’ and found that he ran out of drugs, went to Mong Kok to purchase drugs and was arrested after he was making his way home. Although no paraphernalia for consumption of the ‘Ice’ was found in his residence, counsel told me that the defendant seldom consume drugs in his own residence in the presence of young children.

Counsel submitted that the defendant’s daily consumption of ‘Ice’ is around 0.3 to 0.4 grammes which is at variance with what he told the police under caution. It was also submitted that amongst the four packets of drugs, one packet was for his own consumption. I have been referred to the urine test conducted whilst he was in custody and I note that the urine specimen was collected from him on 21 November 2017, which is three days after his arrest. The test shows amphetamine positive.

In sentencing the defendant I have taken into account facts of the present case and the drugs involved. I also consider the defendant’s guilty plea and mitigation advanced by counsel on his behalf.

Trafficking in the amount of ‘Ice’ as in the present case falls within the bracket of 10 to 70 grammes, attracting a starting point between 7 to 11 years. I consider a starting point of 9 years and 3 months appropriate. I do not accept that one of the larger packets was for his own consumption as he claimed. I only accept that a relatively small amount was for such purpose. I reduce the starting point for six months to reflect that, which is 105 months. He is entitled to the full one-third discount on his guilty plea and is sentenced to 70 months, that is 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.