HKSAR v. Cheung Sai Mau

Case No.HCCC 393/2011
Court
High Court CFI
Date07 May 2012
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC393/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 393 OF 2011

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

  HKSAR  
  v.  
  Cheung Sai-mau  

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

Before: Deputy High Court Judge A Chan
Date: 7 May 2012 at 10.06 am
Present: Mr Phil Chau, on fiat, for HKSAR
  Mr Jonathan Kwan, instructed by Messrs Chan & Tsu, 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: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

On the material day the defendant, who was seen holding a yellow packet, was intercepted by police officers. Police found inside the yellow packet 380 grammes of ketamine. The defendant was then arrested and cautioned.

Apart from the dangerous drugs the police also seized 60 $500 bank notes and three mobile phones on board of his car. The retail value of the ketamine was estimated to be $53,700-odd.

The defendant has a number of previous drug-related convictions, in particular two similar trafficking convictions. So this is not the first time that he has committed the same offence.

In mitigation I am informed by Mr Kwan that the sole reason for the defendant to commit the present offence was to relieve his financial burden at the time. Unfortunately, this excuse or explanation is all too familiar.

Guidelines on sentencing are clear. Given the total quantity of the ketamine and the admission made on his behalf that only a tiny portion, no more than 30 grammes, of the drugs would be used for his own consumption, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point in this case is one of 9½ years’ imprisonment.

The defendant will be given the usual one-third discount for his plea. Other than that, I do not see any other circumstances which might further reduce the sentence.

In conclusion the defendant is sentenced to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.