HKSAR v. Le Chun-tak, Steven
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 1045/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to 2 counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug.
Cites 4 cases
|
DCCC 1045/2018 [2019] HKDC 738 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1045 OF 2018 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Charges and facts 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to 2 counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. 2.On 30 August 2018, a team of police officers ambushed on and in the vicinity of 2/F of a public housing block in Lei Yue Mun Estate, Kwun Tong, to conduct an anti-narcotics operation. At around 8:00 pm, the Defendant and 2 other men were seen wandering outside Room 220 thereof. The Defendant retrieved a bag of suspected dangerous drugs placing on the fire alarm attached to the corridor outside Room 220, and putting it into the right front pocket of his trousers. Police officers hence intercepted him to conduct a body search. 3.A tissue wrapping containing 2 transparent re-sealable plastic bags, containing in total 20 packets of suspected dangerous drugs (“DD1”) were found in the right front pocket of D’s trousers. He was arrested and cautioned for Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug. Under caution, he admitted the suspected dangerous drugs were ketamine and they were possessed for the purpose of distribution to others (Charge 1). 4.At the time of arrest, he had in his possession the following:
5.A house search was then conducted at his residence at Room 219 thereof with search warrant on the same day. A plastic bag containing suspected dangerous drugs (“DD2”), an electronic scale, an iron spoon, and 17 transparent re-sealable plastic bags were found in the right front pocket of one of his shorts inside the wardrobe of his bedroom. Under caution, he admitted the suspected dangerous drugs found were also ketamine and they were possessed for the purpose of distribution to others (Charge 2). 6.In the subsequent video recorded interviews, he repeated his admissions above. He elaborated that his friend gave him the ketamine, the scale and the spoon, and asked him to help distributing the ketamine provided. He would obtain a reward of $500. 7.The Government Chemist confirmed that:
8.According to the police estimation, the street value of the dangerous drugs above was about $55,630 at the material time. 9.At all material times, the Defendant possessed the dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. Mitigation 10.The Defendant is now 17 years 8 months old. He has a clear record. He was 16 years 11 months old studying F. 4 at the time of the offences. 11.He lived with his mother, a salon worker. His parents were divorced. He helped someone to deliver the drugs for a reward of $500. He wants to be a barista after release from prison. Sentencing guidelines 12.As laid down in HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng [2007] 1 HKLRD 1, a trafficker of ketamine of 10 – 50 grammes shall face a jail term of 4 – 6 years. 13.Mr. Chan submits to me 2 cases each reflecting a lower starting point adopted by the court for a first-time offender aged 16 at the time of the offence (HKSAR v Wong Tin-yan DCCC 185/2010; HKSAR v Lee Lap-yin DCCC 802/2011). 14.It is appropriate where two or more counts of drug trafficking are charged and the offences occur on the same day and at the same time, where the reason for there being two or more charges as opposed to one is primarily that the drugs are located in different places, for the court to add the total of the active ingredient of the drugs together to arrive at a notional starting point (HKSAR v Lam Chi Wa CACC 94/2008). Sentencing this Defendant 15.The total narcotic weight of ketamine herein was 41.18 grammmes. I take a starting point of 4 years 9 months (ie 57 months) for each charge. After a one-third discount for the plea of guilty, the sentence is 3 years 2 months (ie 38 months). The sentences shall be concurrent.
|
Cases cited in this judgment