HKSAR v. Choy King Shing
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 27/2011 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 18 February 2011.
1. The Defendant is convicted upon his own guilty plea of the charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 9.93 grammes of ketamine.
Cites 3 cases
|
DCCC 27/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 27 OF 2011 -----------------
-----------------
---------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------- Introduction 1.The Defendant is convicted upon his own guilty plea of the charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 9.93 grammes of ketamine. 2.The facts admitted by the Defendant reveal that:
The Defendant’s previous record and antecedent 3.The Defendant has 1 spent conviction of possession of dangerous drugs. 4.The Defendant was born in Hong Kong in January 1988. He is now 23 years old. He has received education up to Form 4 level. He had been working as a cook trainee and a cook between 2005 and 2009 but was unemployed since 2009. Mitigation 5.In mitigation, Ms. Chan for the Defendant submitted inter alia that the Defendant was at the time of the offence unemployed. He wanted to earn some quick money, hence this offence. A letter from the Defendant was submitted asking for leniency. Sentence 6.The sentencing tariff for trafficking in ketamine has been laid down in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. For trafficking in over 1 gram to 10 grammes of ketamine, the starting point is 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment. 7.In light of the Defendant’s allegation that some of the ketamine was for his self-consumption and having considered HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau CACC 366/2000 and HKSAR v Chong Chee Meng CACC 315/2008, I will take into account that a certain proportion of the ketamine was to be for the Defendant’s self consumption but the proportion would be low. Indeed, in mitigation I was informed that the Defendant was unemployed and he committed the present offence because he wanted to earn quick money. In any case, the latent risk factor must not be ignored. Having considered the whole circumstances, I will give him a slightly lower starting point of 45 months’ imprisonment. 8.Giving the Defendant the usual 1/3 discount for his guilty plea, the Defendant is sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.
|