HKSAR v. Chan Chi Fai
|
DCCC786/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 786 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has been convicted after trial of one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. 2.The relevant facts from the facts of the case are quite simply stated. 3.The defendant drove a car into a housing estate in Aberdeen. Within the car were found what was a total of 43.36 grammes of ketamine and also a number of transparent plastic bags. The defendant admitted he was responsible for delivering the drug and it was the way he made his living. 4.That that is the case is also established by the defendant’s antecedents. He has four previous conviction records. In 2003 he was convicted of blackmail and robbery and served a lengthy prison sentence, some 55 months. In 2008, he was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug and received a sentence of 3 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. He was discharged from prison in August 2010, so he was out of prison for less than a year before committing another offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. 5.The defendant is aged 37. He is educated to Secondary Level 3. He has worked as a delivery man and now has been working since his release in a decoration company. He has parents, sisters and brother. He was unfortunately divorced in April of this year. He has two children, a son aged 13 and a daughter aged 7. They are currently living with his parents. The defendant has, as I say, worked as a decoration worker since his release. I understand his employer asked for leniency and has commented well upon him. His mother also asked for leniency. She will be left with the care of his children whilst he serves a sentence of imprisonment. 6.Sentencing in cases of this nature is to a certain extent prescribed by tariff sentencing. Between 10 and 50 grammes of trafficking in ketamine the sentences range between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment. 7.The mitigating factors in this case appear to me to relate to the defendant’s personal situation in that he has two fairly young children who will be deprived of his company and of his being their father for a lengthy prison sentence. 8.The other factor to be considered is the defendant has previously been convicted of trafficking in what was obviously a substantial quantity of dangerous drugs. He received a lengthy prison sentence for that. That prison sentence did not deter him from committing a further offence in respect of these drugs within a fairly short period of time afterwards. 9.In this case I must be bound by the limitations of the tariff. The quantity is 43.36 grammes, which puts it towards the higher end of the tariff. 10.Taking all these factors into consideration, I will impose a sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment on the defendant.
|