HKSAR v. Chui Man Tik

DCCC292/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 292 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant, Chui Man-tik pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug. 

2. The offence took place on 1 December 2008 in Wanchai.  On the day in question the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 22.96 grammes of a powder containing 18.01 grammes of ketamine.

3. At around 11 pm on 1 December 2008 three police officers, PW1, PW2 and PW3 were on patrol outside 517, Jaffe Road, Wanchai.  They spotted the defendant acting in a suspicious manner.  The defendant was with another male, Choi, at that time.  The police officers revealed their identities.  PW3 conducted a body search on the defendant and found a resealable plastic bag containing powder of a suspected dangerous drug, E1, inside the underpants of the defendant. 

4. PW1 arrested the defendant and, under caution, the defendant claimed he was helping Choi to carry E1, and E1 belonged to Choi.  The suspected dangerous drug, E1, was later examined by Mr Lam, Government Chemist, who found that E1 contained 22.96 grammes of a powder containing 18.01 grammes of ketamine.

5. The value of the ketamine in question is estimated to be $2,752.  At all material times the defendant possessed E1 for the purpose of trafficking.

6. The criminal record summary of the defendant shows that he was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and claiming to be a member of a Triad society in 2005 and he was placed under the probation supervision for 12 months.

7. The antecedent statement of the defendant shows that he is now aged 21.  He received education up to form 2.  Since 2005 the defendant has been working as a transportation worker.  He is single and he lives with his mother and sister in Ap Lei Chau. 

8. Mr Chan told me in mitigation that the defendant’s mother is in court today.  The father of the defendant had passed away.  In this case the defendant had cooperated with the police during the inquiry.  He pleaded guilty to the charge today and he saved the court’s time in doing so. 

9. Mr Chan submitted three letters.  One written by the defendant, one by the defendant’s mother and one by a Mr Choi of Caratis District Youth Outreaching Social Work Team.  I have read the contents of all three letters and I shall not repeat the contents of the same.

10. In sentencing the defendant I have taken into consideration the nature and the quantity of the drugs, the value of the drugs in question, the facts of this case, the antecedent background of the defendant and all the matters urged upon the defendant’s behalf by Mr Chan.  I have also considered the contents of the letters submitted by Mr Chan.

11. According to the tariff as set down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Hii Siew Cheng given the quantity of ketamine in question, i.e., 18.01 grammes of ketamine, in my judgment, the appropriate starting point after trial should be 4½ years’ imprisonment. 

12. I am aware that the defendant does not have the benefit of a clear record.  He was convicted of AOABH and claiming to be a member of a Triad society in 2005.

13. Despite his previous convictions, I am prepared to allow the defendant the full one-third reduction on account of his plea.  Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant I can see no other mitigating factor.

14. I am aware that there is some positive signs shown by the defendant after his arrest.  As stated in the letter of Mr Choi and also the letter from the defendant’s mother, the defendant has distanced himself from undesirable peers pending trial and the defendant had also performed some voluntarily work.  Admirable as they are, I do not think these factors can amount to mitigating factors.

15. It is hoped that the defendant should make the best use of his time in prison and turn over a new leaf upon release.

16.With the one-third reduction the proper sentence should be one of 3 years.  For the reasons given I sentence the defendant to 3 years’ imprisonment.