HKSAR v. Cheung Man Kit

Case No.HCCC 177/2013
Court
High Court CFI
Date27 Jun 2013
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC 177/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 177 OF 2013

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Cheung Man-kit  
------------------
Before: DHCJ Stuart-Moore
Date: 27 June 2013 at 9.43 am
Present: Mr Lenny Cheng Sin-tsing, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Mr Francis Yip Kim-ming, instructed by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
Offence: (1) Trafficking in a dangerous drug(販運危險藥物)
  (2) Possession of dangerous drugs (管有危險藥物)

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant, who is now aged 19, pleaded guilty at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court to charges of trafficking in 710 grammes of ketamine and possession of 18 tablets of nimetazepam. Both offences were committed on 14 November last year, and the defendant has confirmed before me this morning both the plea of guilty and the Summary of Facts.

In short, the defendant was arrested after he had been observed to go to a 4th floor flat in Argyle Street, Mong Kok. He was, as it turns out, the sole occupier of Room C on that floor.

When he was intercepted, the nimetazepam tablets were found on him, and he said that they were for his own consumption. The police then entered Room C with the defendant, where they found four tinfoil bags containing a total weight of 900 grammes of powder, the narcotic content of which weighed 710 grammes. There were also 52 empty transparent resealable plastic bags in the room.

The defendant referred to the drugs as “K Chai” and said that he had been told to put the ketamine into separate packets, and he was persuaded to do so for money. In fact, he told the police that he had collected the ketamine from a flowerbed and that he should then separate it into separate small packets for sale on the promise of daily remuneration of $1,000.

The estimated street value of these drugs was $100,500.

Now, the only mitigation in a case such as this, where the defendant, young though he was, has deliberately engaged in trafficking dangerous drugs, is his plea of guilty. For this he will receive full credit.

Plainly, Mr Yip, who has addressed every issue in mitigation that he could have addressed, will have advised his client that the guideline sentences are clearly set out in Hong Kong for any offence of trafficking in drugs. Mr Yip was correct in saying that under the guidelines in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, 710 grammes of ketamine comes within a sentencing band of 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment after trial. The sentencing band is from 600 to 1,000 grammes.

In my judgment, the proper starting point here is one of 12½ years’ imprisonment after trial on the 2nd charge which relates to trafficking in ketamine.

Mr Cheung, would you stand, please? The sentence on the 2nd charge will be reduced on account of your early plea of guilty to 8 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. On the 1st charge, relating to possession of nimetazepam, there will be a concurrent sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment, reduced from 3 months for the plea of guilty.