HKSAR v. Cheung Kim Yi and Another

Case No.HCCC 261/2013
Court
High Court CFI
Date19 Sep 2013
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC 261/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 261 OF 2013

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Cheung Kim-yi (A1)  
  Cheng Tik-ki, Dicky (A2)  

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

Before: Hon D Pang J
Date: 19 September 2013 at 10.03 am
Present: Mr Cheung Man-kwan, Bobby, SPP (Ag) of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Ms Chong, Sezen K Y, instructed by Christine M Koo & Ip, for the 1st accused
  Mr Lau, Clement C M, instructed by Au-Yeung Cheng Ho & Tin, for the 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 2nd defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 400 grammes of ketamine by pure narcotic content.

The facts of the case were simple. He was stopped by the police on the street and was found to be in possession, in a bag that his girlfriend was carrying, of the drug in question. Under caution, he admitted to be couriering ketamine for others for quick money. He insisted that the matter had nothing to do with his girlfriend who was unaware of what was in the sealed packages.

The defendant is aged 20 years and 10 months as of now. He was born in Hong Kong. He left school after form 5 and a VTC programme in hospitality studies. He had had various jobs in the food industry but was unemployed at the time of the offence. He was single, living with his parents and has no previous convictions.

In mitigation, counsel submitted that the defendant was in debt, could not keep up with the repayments and made the unwise decision to be involved in the drug business. Counsel also submitted that the defendant was a filial son and is now remorseful. These, as counsel should know, are not real mitigating factors. I agree with counsel, though, that this is not an appropriate case for the enhancement of sentence under section 56A(1) and (2)(d). There is insufficient evidence to disprove that the defendant and his girlfriend were not on a pre-arranged date.

Given the quantity of the drug involved, the correct starting point is one of 10 years. Because of the guilty plea, that will be reduced by one-third to 6 years and 8 months. There being no other effective mitigating factor, that is the sentence I pass on the defendant.

He will go to prison for 6 years and 8 months.