HKSAR v. Cheung Ho Lam

Case No.HCCC 118/2024[2024] HKCFI 3377
Court
High Court CFI
Date29 Oct 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC 118/2024

[2024] HKCFI 3377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 118 OF 2024

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Cheung Ho-lam  

________________________

Before:  Hon Andrew Chan J
Date:  29 October 2024 at 9.48 am
Present:  Ms Winnie Mok, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Mr Ho Wai-kin Victor, instructed by H Y Leung & Co LLP, assigned by DLA, for the accused
Offence:   Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物)

________________________________________

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

________________________________________

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. He is committed to this court for sentence.

In the afternoon on 16 August 2022, the defendant was intercepted by police officers as he left one apartment at one public housing estate in Sheung Shui. Armed with a search warrant, the defendant was then led back by the police to his residence for a house search. Inside his residence, police officers found 258.83 grammes of ketamine, 21.06 grammes of cocaine and 22.4 grammes of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was asked to act as a drug courier and in return he would receive HK$2,000.

The street value of all those dangerous drugs in question was estimated to be over HK$200,000.

The defendant is 24, educated up to Form 3 level. He has one possession of dangerous drugs criminal record. Prior to

his arrest, he was unemployed. Counsel from both sides agreed that the notional starting point based on quantity alone under various tests would be one of 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Without further evidence pointing to the contrary, this court accepts that the defendant was acting simply as a courier at the material time.

Mitigation letters from the defendant’s wife and pastor have been produced. They asked for leniency from this court. I understand their wishes but I am bound by the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal. In particular, personal circumstances pales into insignificance in a case as serious as the present one.

Apart from the defendant’s plea, there is in my view no other mitigating factor. For the sole offence the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 6 years 2 months and 20 days’ imprisonment.