HKSAR v. Chan Lok Hang
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 728/2020 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 23 February 2021.
1. Mr Chan pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
Cites 1 case
|
DCCC 728/2020 [2021] HKDC 228 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 728 OF 2020 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.Mr Chan pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. 2.The particulars of offence are that Mr Chan on 11 November 2019 at the Octopus Pedestrian Bridge, near Sun Ming House, Sun Chui Estate, Shatin, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 19.98 grammes of a powder containing 16.85 grammes of ketamine. Facts admitted by Mr Chan 3.On the charge date at about 9:20 pm, Mr Chan was stopped and searched in the charge place. In a handbag held by Mr Chan were found 3 transparent re-sealable plastic bags containing a total of 25 smaller but similar plastic bags which themselves contained white transparent crystalline granules (later certified to be 19.98 grammes of a powder containing 16.85 grammes of ketamine. 4.Mr Chan was arrested and under caution said these dangerous drugs were to be distributed by him to others but before he could do so, he was arrested. 5.Inside the handbag were also found two mobile phones. On his person, the police also found $3,536.30 in cash. 6.Back at the police station, in the presence of his mother, Mr Chan under caution changed his story to having the dangerous drugs for his own consumption. 7.In a video recorded interview on the next day in the presence of his lawyer, he repeated under caution the same new version. 8.Mr Chan now accepts that the dangerous drugs were for the purposes of unlawful trafficking. 9.The estimated market retail value of the dangerous drugs came to $11,009. Criminal record 10.Mr Chan enjoyed a clear record. Antecedents 11.Mr Chan is 18 years old (16 at the time of the offence), educated to F5 (but see mitigation below) and has worked as a part-time waiter. Mr Chan is single and lives with parents, an elder brother and his grandmother. Mitigation 12.Ms Susanna Ku of counsel mitigated on behalf of Mr Chan. 13.The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions. 14.A purely arithmetic calculation relying on the guidelines in Secretary for Justice and Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 will work out a starting point of 4 years 4 months for 16.85 grammes of ketamine (for 10-50 grammes: 4 to 6 years). 15.Mr Chan studied up to F3 and was a year 2 student of a 3-year vehicle repairing course at IVE at the time of the offence. 16.Ms Ku submitted 9 documents comprising mitigation letters, certificates relating to religious growth and voluntary work and a letter relating to employment matter. 17.Ms Ku summed up by saying that Mr Chan admitted the offence on arrest and indicated his plea early showing remorse; that he committed the offence out of character and out of greed and the chance of re-offending is extremely low; that he previously enjoyed a clear record and was young at the time; that he had previously done voluntary work for over 100 hours. Sentence 18.I have considered the mitigation submissions and have read all the documents handed up on Mr Chan’s behalf. 19.Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence. Being a first time offender and youth are not mitigating factors. 20.Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221, does not apply to one who has been convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug. 21.The strongest mitigating factor is Mr Chan’s early plea for which he will be given the full 1/3 discount. Other than that, I can discern no other mitigating factors of sufficient weight to warrant any further discount. 22.I shall adopt a starting point of 4 years 4 months or 52 months as the starting point. Taking 1/3 off results in a sentence of 34 months and 2/3. 23.As an act of mercy, I shall round it down to the nearest month. (Mr Chan, please stand) 24.Mr Chan shall serve a sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment