HKSAR v. Chung Tak Ming
|
DCCC 469/2015 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 469 OF 2015 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, and the charge that he has pleaded guilty to shows that that was a powder containing 106 grammes of ketamine. 2.The facts the defendant has pleaded guilty to and accepted show that the offence occurred on the evening of 5 April 2015. He was stopped and searched by an anti‑narcotics patrol whilst he was in the Choi Hung Estate in Kowloon. When he was searched, a plastic bag was found upon him in his rear right pocket, and that contained the 106 grammes of ketamine that we are concerned with today. 3.He said he was taking care of the “K chai” for a friend and did not receive any reward. There was a more detailed admission in a subsequent video‑recorded interview. He said that his friend had asked him to take the “K chai” up to the 2nd floor and wait there. 4.The value of the ketamine concerned in this case is estimated to be $29,264. 5.The defendant admits that he had the ketamine in his possession for the purpose of trafficking in it. 6.As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, there is, and I have seen, a statement which has been admitted. He is aged 21. He was educated up to Secondary 3 level in Hong Kong. He has in the past been a transportation worker. He has a son, aged 3. He has one previous conviction for an unrelated offence involving dealing with goods to which the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance applies, for which he was fined. 7.The defendant’s son is currently cared for by his aunt. Nevertheless, it is a factor to be considered that he will be deprived of the society of his father for some time as a result of any sentence imposed today. It appears that the wife, or the mother of the child, is no longer on the scene. 8.As far as general mitigation is concerned, I am referred to the defendant’s plea of guilty, his young age - he is only 21; the fact that he has no previous convictions of a similar nature, and the conviction he has had is a relatively minor offence for which he was fined; that he has family responsibilities towards his child that he will not be able to discharge; and that he is broadly supported by his wider family; that the defendant is remorseful, and that this is shown in the letter that he has written to the court. 9.As far as the sentence is concerned, it is accepted by the parties here that there is a generally applicable tariff to cases of trafficking in dangerous drugs, especially ketamine, and that the amount of drug that we are concerned with here is 106 grammes of ketamine. 10.The guidelines are largely derived from the quantity of drug concerned. In this case, the relevant category is that between 50 and 300 grammes, where sentence can range or should range between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. These are guideline recommendations for sentence. They are there to ensure consistency in sentencing. 11.For this quantity of drug, the starting point for sentence should range between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. 12.There are a number of compelling mitigating factors here, especially the defendant’s youth and his family situation. Nevertheless, they do not seem to be sufficient to take the case outside of the range of guideline sentencing. 13.What I shall do is take the starting point as being the lowest figure on the guideline; that is, 6 years’ imprisonment, as the starting point. There is a deduction of one‑third from that, which is 2 years, which leaves a final sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment for this offence.
|