HKSAR v. So Kin Ho and Another

Case No.HCCC 165/2012
Court
High Court CFI
Date19 Jul 2012
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC165/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 165 OF 2012

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  So Kin-ho (A1)  
  Tai Yin-ki (A2)  

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

Before: Hon M Poon J
Date: 19 July 2012 at 9.49 am
Present: Miss Winnie Lam, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Ms Alice Lee Sin-bing, instructed by the Legal Aid Department, for the 1st and 2nd 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 defendants are jointly charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, and they have pleaded guilty.

D2 was seen by police officers, who were laying ambush, to have been coming out of a residential premises. He was intercepted. A search warrant for the premises was executed. D1 was found inside one of the bedrooms.

Inside a drawer therein, many packets of drugs and packaging paraphernalia, including an electronic scale and resealable plastic bags, were found.

The two defendants admitted to have rented the premises and they were selling those drugs by phone orders. Each would be rewarded $5,000 to $6,000 monthly.

The market retail value of the drugs at that time amounted to HK$39,414.

Upon analysis, the drugs were found to be a total of 334.02 grammes of a powder containing 133.94 grammes of ketamine.

Both of the defendants are aged 23. D1 has one previous conviction of possession of dangerous drugs in year 2010, sentenced to 12 months’ probation, which he later breached that probation order and was resentenced to the DATC.

D2 has three previous convictions. One was possession of dangerous drugs, also in 2010, for which he received a probation order. Again, he breached that probation order and was sentenced to the DATC.

On behalf of the two defendants it was advanced that they both dropped out of school at a relatively early stage. Each has taken up odd jobs, but their addictions caused them to lose their jobs and eventually led them to commit the present offence. It is also submitted that they both fully co‑operated with the police and pleaded guilty at the earliest possible instance, which shows their remorse. Counsel urges me to adopt the lower starting point and to pass a lenient sentence.

In sentencing the defendants, I have taken into account the nature of the offence, the drug involved, its quantity, and the sentencing tariff laid down by the case of Hii Siew Cheng. I have also taken into account their guilty pleas and mitigation forwarded by counsel on their behalf.

For trafficking in ketamine weighing between 50 to 300 grammes, the Court of Appeal has laid down a tariff of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.

For the present amount of narcotics, I adopt a starting point of 7½ years’ imprisonment. I shall give each of them the full one-third discount for their guilty pleas, and each of them is sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.