HKSAR v. Pang Tsz Chung

Case No.HCCC 45/2011
Court
High Court CFI
Date08 Apr 2011
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC45/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 45 OF 2011

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Pang Tsz-chung  

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

Before:

Hon Saw J

Date:

8 April 2011 at 9.47 am

Present:

Mr W T Chiu, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr James Peter Chandler, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Accused

Offence:

Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: On 11 February of this year, the defendant pleaded guilty at the Eastern Magistrates Court to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

The particulars of the offence were as follows: that he, on 18 August 2010, outside Sau Yuen House, Chuk Yuen South Estate, Wong Tai Sin, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 497.64 grammes of a powder containing 409.50 grammes of ketamine.

He has today, before me, confirmed that plea of guilty and the Summary of Facts filed in support of it. The Summary of Facts reveals the following. Late in the afternoon of 18 August 2010, the defendant was outside Sau Yuen House, Chuk Yuen South Estate in Wong Tai Sin. His behaviour alerted the suspicions of some patrolling police officers.

He was searched. In the right pocket of his trousers, there was a pink plastic bag which itself contained a resealable plastic bag with what the officers suspected to be dangerous drugs inside. He was arrested and cautioned. He told the police officers that he was delivering the ‘K Chai’ for $300.

This he later confirmed in a statement under caution which was video recorded. The police officers’ suspicions proved to be correct and, subsequently, the Government Chemist analysed the substance in the plastic bag and it was determined to be 409.5 grammes of ketamine. This quantity of ketamine was valued at almost $60,000.

On behalf of the defendant today, Mr Chandler readily acknowledges that the most significant mitigating factor is the defendant’s early plea of guilty. He has told me something of the defendant’s background and confirmed, basically, that the contents of the antecedents statement which has been read to the court are correct.

He has two prior convictions, neither of which resulted in any term of imprisonment. Neither has anything to do with dangerous drugs.

On his behalf, Mr Chandler submits that he was but a delivery boy. That may be so but, nevertheless, the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal acknowledges that those who engage in trafficking in dangerous drugs at this level are bound by the guidelines provided. Notwithstanding Mr Chandler’s able submissions, there is nothing in anything that has been advanced before me today which would permit me to in any way depart from those guidelines.

In Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD at page 1, guidance is provided for imposing sentences after trial for trafficking in quantities of ketamine. This quantity falls within the 300 to 600 gramme band where sentences between 9 and 12 years’ imprisonment are advised.

I am satisfied, in the circumstances of this case and applying that authority, that the appropriate starting point for sentence is one of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Giving full allowance for the defendant’s plea of guilty, the appropriate sentence is one of 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment and that is the sentence I impose.