|
HCCC115/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 115 OF 2011
-----------------
-----------------
|
Date:
|
23 August 2011 at 10.00 am
|
|
Present:
|
Mr Tam Sze-lok, Isaac, ADPP(II) of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Andrew Humphrey Bullett, instructed by Messrs Haldanes, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Accuse
|
|
Offence:
|
(1) and (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 was charged with two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 119.09 grammes of ketamine, by pure narcotic content, Count 1; and 3.82 grammes of the same, Count 2.
He was acquitted of Count 1 and convicted of Count 2.
The facts of the case were that he emerged from a co‑defendant’s home holding a box of drugs in his hands - Count 1. Upon interception, other drugs were found on him - Count 2 - and his co‑defendant.
His defence at trial was that he was unaware of the contents of the box and that the smaller packet on his person, weighing 6.9 grammes, in powder form, was for self‑consumption. The jury obviously believed him as regards Count 1, but disbelieved him as regards Count 2.
The defendant is aged 19; 18 at the time of the offence. Born locally, he was educated up to Form 5 level. He had had a number of blue-collar jobs but was, at the time of his arrest, single, unemployed, and living with his parents.
He has on two previous occasions mustered a total of three criminal convictions, none of which is similar. In fact, by committing the present offence he was in breach of a 12‑month probation order imposed on him for his last conviction.
In mitigation it was said that the defendant was a recreational drug user and that much of the 6.9 gramme powder would be for self‑consumption, so he should be sentenced as leniently as possible. That, in my view, contradicts the defendant’s evidence that he was taking as little as 0.1 gramme of ketamine once every two to three days.
Looking at the situation in the round, the correct view, in my judgment, is that the bulk of the drug in question would be for trafficking rather than for self-consumption.
Given the quantity of the drug in Count 2, a starting point of 2½ years is appropriate. In the absence of any real mitigating factor, that is the sentence I shall pass on the defendant.
He will go to prison for 2½ years.
Defendant, do you understand?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
COURT: You have been in custody for how long?
DEFENDANT: 10 months.
COURT: If you behave well in prison, you will be out in about 10 months. If you really mean what you said in your letter, there is ample opportunity for you to turn over a new leaf, to use an old-fashioned phrase. I can see you are an intelligent person. I could tell when you gave evidence, even when relatively complicated put, you can answer questions readily, logically. Do not misuse your talents any more, I hope.
|