HKSAR v. Chik Hiu Fung

DCCC1142/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1142 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.  The prosecution case, in a gist, is that he was stopped by PW1 in a park in Tsuen Wan.  Upon a body search, four packets of ketamine were found inside his right rear trousers pocket.

2.  He was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that a man had offered him $500 to take these drugs to Panda Hotel. 

3. The defendant had one previous conviction.  That was unrelated to the present offence.

4.  In mitigation, I was told that the defendant lived with his parents and a younger brother before the arrest.  His mother had suffered from cancer and required treatment which cost the family a lot of money.  The reason for the defendant to commit the present offence was to earn quick money to help his family.

5. It has been said in numerous authorities that financial pressure is no excuse for offending.  Suffice to say that his family members all write to this court to ask for leniency because the defendant is now remorseful.  The defendant’s father is also in court today to support him.

6.  I also notice that this case has been adjourned on two previous occasions to enable the police to conduct further investigation. I am told today that the information given by the defendant was insufficient to make any arrest, and this information was of no use to the police.  Again, this does not attract a reduction of sentence.

7.  This is a case of serious offence which involved a total of 97.53 grammes of ketamine.  No doubt a sentence of deterrence and punishment is necessary in order to send out a message to the public that the court takes no leniency in this kind of cases.

8. Besides, there is a sentence guideline laid down in the case of Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR 7/2006.  The quantity of the present offence falls into the sentencing bracket of 6 to 9 years.

9.In passing sentence, I have considered all the mitigating factors put before me by the defence counsel, most importantly, the co-operation of the defendant with the police. 

10.I adopted a starting point of 6 and a half years, that should be 78 months, reduced to 52 months to reflect the

defendant’s guilty plea.  I further reduce 3 months in view of the defendant’s young age, and that comes down to 49 months.