HKSAR v. Cheng Chun Him

Case No.HCCC 304/2010
Court
High Court CFI
Date07 Feb 2011
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC304/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 304 OF 2010

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Cheng Chun-him  

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

Before:

Hon D Pang J

Date:

7 February 2011 at 10.18 am

Present:

Miss Leung Po-kei, Peggy, SPP (Acting) of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Nicholas E W Adams, instructed by M C A Lai & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Accused

Offence:

(1) & (2) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (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 two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, involving count 1, 57.01 grammes and count 2, 1,238.75 grammes of ketamine by pure narcotic content.

The facts of the case were simple. The defendant was stopped by the police upon leaving a building in Mongkok and found to be carrying the drug in count 1. With keys found on him, the police then entered a unit in that same building and found the drug in count 2 and a large number of packing paraphernalia.

Under caution, the defendant stated that the drug in count 1 was taken from the flat and that he was on his way to distribute it to someone else. As for the drug in count 2, it was obtained earlier in the day and would be re-packed for selling.

Subsequent investigation revealed that the defendant had rented the flat in question some 3 weeks before the day in question.

The defendant is aged 26. Born in Hong Kong and educated up to Form 2, he had worked mainly as a food and drink worker until the year 2009, when he became unemployed. He has on three occasions in five matters gathered a total of six previous convictions, none of which were similar although three of them were for simple possession. Otherwise, his background is far from privileged but nevertheless unremarkable.

In mitigation, counsel pointed to his early indication of a guilty plea. It was said that he committed the present offences because of the pressure of unemployment.

Given the total amount of drug involved in the two charges, the correct overall starting point should be one of 15½ years. Given the guilty pleas, the only real mitigating factor, it shall be reduced by one-third to 10 years and 4 months.

To give this effect, I sentence the defendant to 4 years and 4 months for count 1, and 9 years and 8 months for count 2, the sentences to run partly concurrently and partly consecutively to give a total of 10 years and 4 months.