HKSAR v. Chan Chi Ming

DCCC98/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 98 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in 49.42 grammes of ketamine.

2.Shortly after 10 pm on the 9 December 2010, officers were conducting anti-dangerous drugs operation in Mongkok when they saw the defendant acting furtively outside the main entrance of the Ho King Commercial Centre on Fa Yuen Street.

3.The defendant was intercepted and searched.  Four transparent plastic bags were found in the hood of his jacket.  He was also in possession of just over $3,400. 

4.He was subsequently interviewed, and when interviewed he said that he had received $1,000 from a male called “Hung Chai” as a reward for trafficking in the drugs.

5.He told the police that the “Hung Chai” asked him to collect the drugs from the water tank of a toilet on the 2nd floor of the Ho King Commercial Centre.  The estimated street value of the drugs is just over $8,500.

6.The defendant was convicted in 2007 for an offence of theft and placed on probation.  A few months later he was before the court for breach of that probation order.  The order was discharged and he was sent to a detention centre. 

7.The defendant is 20 years of age; he was born in China, came to Hong Kong in 2004 and was educated here to Form 1 level.   At the time on his arrest he was working as an assistant cook in a Chinese restaurant, earning $9,000 per month.  His father is aged 53, and unfortunately due to a neck injury, he has had to retire as a construction worker.  His mother is aged 43 and works in an elderly home and earns $6,000 per month.  He has an elder brother aged 23, who is an air-conditioning worker, earning $7,000 per month.

8.When he was working the defendant contributed $3,000 per month to his parents.  Since his arrest the defendant has been kept in custody.

9.I am told by his counsel that the offence was committed because the defendant was not able to manage his income well and he committed the offence out of greed. 

10.The defendant is 20 years of age and this is his first offence of this type. 

11.As counsel has rightly acknowledged, the sentencing band for offences of this kind, trafficking in 49.42 grammes of ketamine, is at the upper end of the 10 to 50 grammes range and attracts a sentence of 4 to 6 years. 

12.I am told the defendant does not want to go to a training centre.  Given the quantity of drugs involved, that would not be an option in this case, in any event.

13.I take a starting point of 5½ years for this offence.  The only mitigation is the guilty plea and I reduce that sentence by one-third to reflect that plea. 

14.The defendant will therefore go to prison for 44 months.