HKSAR v. Leung Kam Fai
|
DCCC 929/2023 [2024] HKDC 1408 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 929 OF 2023 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges:-
Summary of facts 2.The police execute a search warrant on 8 June 2023 and entered into the premises where drugs of Charge 1 and cash $2,120 were found inside the drawer of the Keeper’s table. 3.The total value of the drugs was $6,521. 4.There were price list attached on the wall. 5.Other items were also seized which included:-
6.Under caution, the defendant said that:-
Criminal record 7.Since 1979 to 2021, the D had 54 criminal convictions, out of which 17 convictions related to drug offenses. 8.The prosecution informed me that as to KDC/325/85, the sentence for a charge of burglary and assault with intend to rob was substituted by a DATC order on appeal. Background 9.The Defendant is 59 years old, he used to be a casual worker earning $450 a day. He lives apart from his family. 10.On the day of his arrest, he just returned back to Hong Kong from China. His friend asked him to keep the divan in question for a daily wage of $500. Sentence 11.There are 4 types of drugs in the present case:-
12.As to cocaine and heroin, the sentencing guidelines are the same. AG v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342 refers. 13.The aggregated amount of both drugs is 4.27 grams:-
14.According to HKSAR v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 that trafficking in 4.27 grams of heroin / cocaine falls into the sentencing bracket of 2 to 5 years. It attracts a sentence of 3 years and 3 months. 15.As to a small quantity of 0.3 grams of ketamine, according to the sentencing guidelines of Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the sentence is within the sentencer’s discretion. 16.Since the quantity of ketamine and midazolam are insignificant, it carries little or no impact on the overall sentencing. I therefore do not need to take it into account for the purpose of sentencing. 17.To this end, I take 3 years 3 months as the starting point. 18.The Defence accepted that there are aggravating factors in the present case:-
19.I enhance the sentence by 6 months. It arrives at 3 years 9 months, given 1/3 discount for his guilty plea, it reduces to 30 months, that is 2 years 6 months. Charge 2 (Keeping a divan) 20.In the case of HKSAR v Lam Lai Chu Patsy CACC 56/2003 that a usual sentence is within a range of 1 to 2 years. 21.In the present case, the premises is about 1,000 square feet with 10 chairs, 2 big sofa in the living room. There were altogether 13 persons presented at the time of the arrest. 22.In view of the size of the operation, I take 18 months as the starting point, reduce to 12 months after 1/3 discount. Totality 23.The Defence asked for both sentences to run concurrently. I disagree as it cannot reflect the culpability of the offences. In one of the cases submitted by the Defence that is HKSAR v Cheung Kung Hang CACC 459/2000 that there was nothing wrong to order part of the sentence to run consecutively to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drug. 24.To this end, I order 6 months to run consecutively to charge one. That arrives at 3 years.
|
Cases cited in this judgment