HKSAR v. Ho Chak Ming

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 95/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 5 January 2023.

Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case

Case No.HCCC 95/2022[2023] HKCFI 203
Court
High Court CFI
Date05 Jan 2023
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC 95/2022

[2023] HKCFI 203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 95 OF 2022

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Ho Chak-ming (何澤銘)  

________________________

Before:  Hon Campbell-Moffat J
Date:  5 January 2023 at 9.38 am
Present:  Mr Glen Kong, SPP(Ag)  of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Ms Sabrina See, instructed by Tai, Tang & Chong, assigned by DLA, for the accused
Offence:   Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

________________________

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

________________________

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in 34.51 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 on 27 June 2022, before the Eastern Magistrates’ Court and has confirmed that plea today.

The defendant was intercepted by officers on an anti-narcotics patrol whilst he was walking along Nam Cheong Street in Sham Shui Po at 3 o’clock in the morning on 1 January 2021. Upon search, several resealable plastic bags were found secreted within the sleeves of the defendant’s jacket. He was also found to have three mobile phones and $10,606 in cash upon him. The defendant, as is his right, said nothing upon arrest and caution or in interview.

The drugs which were recovered had a street value of $20,891.64.

The defendant is now 67 years of age, single, lives in Kwun Tong and claims he has a drug habit. He has a substantial criminal record dating back to 1989. He was first before the court for matters in relation to drugs in 1996 and thereafter in 2000, 2001 and 2004. He was first dealt with for trafficking in 2005 when he was before the District Court at which time he received a sentence of imprisonment of 18 months along with a consecutive sentence of 4 months for two matters of possession.

In 2009, he was dealt with once more for possession and trafficking for which he received 7 months’ imprisonment, but later that year the defendant received a sentence of 12 years and 3 months’ for separate matters of trafficking and two other offences. His last offending before this matter was in 2018 and 2019 for possession of dangerous drugs when he received sentences of 10 months and 8 months to be served consecutively. He was last discharged from prison on 13 November 2019.

Ms See has explained to the court how it came to pass that the defendant commenced taking drugs and committed the several offences already mentioned. Since he is last released from prison, I am told that the defendant attempted to turnover a new leaf by finding himself proper employment, but that came to an end, of course, when the defendant was arrested for this offence.

The relevant sentencing guideline for the offence of trafficking in ‘Ice’ is HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691. For trafficking in between 10 grammes and 70 grammes of ‘Ice’, the sentencing range is between 7 to 11 years. For trafficking in 34.51 grammes of ‘Ice’, I consider an appropriate starting point after trial in all the circumstances of this case to be 8 years and 6 months.

However, there is the aggravating feature of the defendant’s criminal record. If it had not been for the last matter of trafficking in 2009, I might have taken a slightly more lenient approach as the defendant is clearly drug dependent. But in 2009, he was dealt with for substantive trafficking, which cannot be said to have been a one-off act.

He is unfortunately an entrenched recidivist and he is clearly going to offend in some form or other until the day he dies. He does not appear to care what harm he does to others, who will follow in his footsteps if they become addicted to the drugs he sells. I intend to enhance that sentence therefore by 1 year to mark the previous offending of this defendant.

I have taken into consideration what has been said on the defendant’s behalf, but trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. Deterrence to others is therefore an overwhelming consideration. Nothing else has been able to be said which could warrant a more lenient course that would otherwise be the case.

And so the sentence which I pass after a full one-third discount for the defendant’s plea at the earliest opportunity is one of 6 years and 4 months.

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case