Case Document

100%

HCCC 247/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 247 OF 2014

___________________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR
	v
	CHAN NAM-CHEUN

___________________

Before: Hon Zervos J in Court

Date of Hearing: 30 July 2014

Date of Sentence: 30 July 2014

_____________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_____________________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity at the Magistrate’s Court for trafficking in a dangerous drug. The particulars of the offence are that on 4 December 2013 the defendant in Tsuen Wan was apprehended by the police trafficking drugs in that he had in his possession, 71 plastic bags containing a total of 18.01 grammes of a solid containing 13.47 grammes of cocaine, 22 plastic bags containing 242.30 grammes of a solid containing 200.78 grammes of ketamine and 1 plastic bag containing 6.51 grammes of a solid containing 5.26 grammes of ketamine.

2.The defendant was arrested as a result of an anti-narcotics operation by the police. At about 9:55pm on 4 December 2013 he was seen boarding a light goods van. He was observed behaving suspiciously and upon seeing the police, he started his van to drive away but could not do so because of the heavy traffic. He was intercepted by the police and asked what he was doing at the location. He said he was waiting for his friend. He was searched and found inside one of the pockets of his vest jacket was a yellow plastic bag containing the 71 plastic bags of cocaine and in another pocket was 23 bags of ketamine.

3.The defendant was arrested and cautioned. He admitted that he was in possession of cocaine and ketamine, which he described as “coke” and “K Chai” respectively. He said he was given the drugs by someone called Ah Kwai who asked him to sell the drugs. He did not know Ah Kwai’s address or contact number. He said he was the only breadwinner of his family and that he was selling the drugs to earn more money.

4.The defendant is 30 years of age who was educated up to secondary school level. He was born in mainland China and moved to Hong Kong in 1993. Upon leaving school, he worked as a decoration worker and then as a goods vehicle driver earning about $20,000 per month. He is married with two young sons and he and his family live together with his grandmother and parents. He claims he does not have a drug habit but got involved in this offence because of a substantial debt of nearly $500,000 he incurred in a delivery van business that he was operating.

5.The defendant is a person with a clear record and I have received a plea of leniency from his wife and other testimonials as to his overall good character. At the time of his apprehension, he cooperated with the police and was frank and forthcoming when questioned by them. I have taken these matters into account. The most obvious and substantial mitigating factor is his plea of guilty which he indicated at the earliest opportunity. It is regretted that he has put himself and his family in this situation. He has a young wife with two young sons and there is no doubt that this will be difficult for them. He should have thought of them before he embarked in his criminal activities.

6.There are two quantities of drugs involved－cocaine and ketamine. The quantity of cocaine is 13.47 grammes and according to the tariff in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 the starting point for this quantity of drugs should be 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. The total quantity of ketamine was 206 grammes and according to the tariff in S for J v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 the starting point for this quantity of drugs should be 7 years and 10 ½ months’ imprisonment. I will impose a sentence on the defendant by taking a combined approach as explain on the authority of HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin and Anor [2004] 3 HKC 367which requires that I look at the overall quantity of drugs in order to arrive an appropriate sentence for the cocktail of drugs involved in this offence. I will also take into account the personal circumstances of the defendant and his readiness to acknowledge to the authorities and the court his wrongdoing. Accordingly, I will impose a starting point which is slightly less than that which would be normally given of 8 years’ imprisonment which I will reduce by one-third for his plea of guilty. He is therefore sentenced to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.