HKSAR v. Le Van Chi

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 377/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 May 2020.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCCC 377/2018[2020] HKCFI 1336
Court
High Court CFI
Date13 May 2020
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC 377/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 377 OF 2018

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Le Van Chi (A4)  

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

Before: Hon Andrew Chan J
Date: 13 May 2020 at 9.41 am
Present: Mr Steve Chui, on fiat, for HKSAR
  Mr Ng Ka-chung Simon, instructed by Solomon C Chong & Co, assigned by DLA, for the 4th accused
Offence:  (1) Cultivation of cannabis plants (栽植大麻植物)
  (2) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

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

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

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

COURT: D4 has pleaded guilty to one count of cultivation of cannabis plant, that is Count 1, and one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, that is Count 2.

Well, since D4’s situation is exactly the same as D3 and 5, I am not going to repeat in details what I have already said when sentencing D3 and D5 regarding the facts and the law.

In short, on 16 May 2017, the police raided a unit inside one industrial building. D4 was found to be present inside the premises. Inside the unit, the police found 598 pots of cannabis from which 608 kilogrammes of living cannabis plants were extracted. In addition, the police also found 48 bags with a total weight of 22.5 kilogrammes of herbal cannabis.

Under caution, D4 admitted that he came to Hong Kong from China and he was paid HK$10,000 each month for looking after the plants such as watering, fertilizing and cutting the flowers, cutting and drying the flowers from the plant.

D4 is 46. He has two sons in Vietnam and his wife passed away in 2008 in one traffic accident. In 2014, D4 went to China to find work. He was later recruited to come to Hong Kong for work. A few months into his work, he realized that he was employed to look after cannabis. Well, since D4’s role is exactly the same as D3 and 5, I am not going to repeat myself by going through the authorities. In short, for Charge 2, he is sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment. In respect of Charge 1, he is sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment. 6 months of that 24 months is to run consecutively to the 40 months imposed on Charge 2.

In conclusion, D4 is therefore sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment.

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCCC 377/2018