HKSAR v. Tang Ping Kau

HCCC 16/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 16 OF 2015

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one charge of possession of dangerous drugs. He was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today he confirmed his guilty pleas before me and stands convicted of the two charges.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, the background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

At about 10.15 pm on the day in question, when the defendant was opening the driver’s seat door of a light goods vehicle parked on the street with nobody inside, he was intercepted by police officers.

Upon search of the vehicle, the dangerous drugs which were the subject matter of the two charges were found. In addition, other items, including a large number of re-sealable plastic bags, a scale, a straw and a glass bottle were also found.

Found in the glove compartment were 12 plastic bags containing a total of 150 grammes of a solid containing 120 grammes of ketamine. Other dangerous drugs found were 0.58 grammes of a solid containing 0.51 grammes of ketamine, 0.13 grammes of a powder containing ketamine, and 6.23 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.21 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Under caution, the defendant stated that the ketamine was for sale while the “Ice” was for his own consumption.

Later, at a video-recorded interview the defendant said that half of the quantity of the ketamine in Charge 1 was for selling to other persons, and half was for his own consumption.

Today, learned defence counsel, Mr McGuinniety, confirmed the defence case is that the whole quantity of ketamine as stated in Charge 1 was for sale, and that the dangerous drugs stated in Charge 2 were for the defendant’s own consumption. He made this confirmation after seeking specific instruction from the defendant.

I was told that the defendant is now 31 years of age. He has completed Junior Secondary School education and had worked as a transportation worker. He was married, but the couple had separated. Learned defence counsel stressed that the defendant cooperated with the police and made admission as soon as he was arrested. He also pleaded guilty in court at the earliest opportunity, as this has been his intention all along.

Learned counsel also informed the court that the defendant was so seriously affected by the separation with his wife that he resorted to dangerous drugs.

Despite he had been gainfully employed, the income was not enough to support his addiction. It was in these circumstances that the defendant involved in the present offence.

The defendant’s family is still supportive to the defendant. The parents and other family members are in court today. The parents of the defendant and his elder sister wrote letters to the court. They said the defendant is of good nature. He has been good to the family and support the family financially. They ask for leniency on behalf of the defendant.

The defendant is not a first-time offender. His first conviction is for an offence of conspiracy to rob. For that offence, he was convicted in October 2000 and was sentenced to Detention Centre. In 2007 he was convicted twice for possession of dangerous drugs and one charge of possession of Part 1 Poison. In 2011, he was again convicted of the offence of possession of dangerous drugs and was sentenced to DATC.

The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in, in the present case, was ketamine. The total narcotic content was 120 grammes. The Court of Appealsuggested in the case Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 that a sentence of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment shall be considered for trafficking in ketamine where the narcotic content was 50 to 300 grammes.

Taking into account the whole circumstances of the present case, in my judgment a starting the point of 6 years and 9 months is appropriate for the trafficking charge, that is Charge 1.

For Charge 2, I have to take into account the defendant was in possession of two types of dangerous drugs, his previous similar conviction record and the substantial degree of latent risk. I adopt a starting point of 30 months’ for Charge 2.

The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty pleas. Having considered the whole circumstances of the case, including everything learned counsel has said on the defendant’s behalf, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.

Yes, defendant, please stand up.

By reasons of the matters aforesaid, I sentence you to the following imprisonment terms: Charge 1, 4½ years. Charge 2, 20 months. And having regard the totality, I order that the two sentences to run concurrently.

So for the two charges you are to serve a total sentence of 4½ years.