A A
DCCC 469/2015
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C CRIMINAL CASE NO 469 OF 2015 C
D
---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F Chung Tak-ming F
G ---------------------- G
Before: HH Judge Casewell
H Date: 23 July 2015 at 3.01 pm H
Present: Mr Ip Wai-kee, PP of the Department of Justice, for
HKSAR
I Mr Leung Ka-lok, of K L Leung & Co, assigned by the I
Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
J Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) J
---------------------
K K
Reasons for Sentence
L L
---------------------
M 1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of M
trafficking in a dangerous drug, and the charge that he has
N pleaded guilty to shows that that was a powder containing N
106 grammes of ketamine.
O O
2. The facts the defendant has pleaded guilty to and
P P
accepted show that the offence occurred on the evening of
Q 5 April 2015. He was stopped and searched by an anti-narcotics Q
patrol whilst he was in the Choi Hung Estate in Kowloon. When he
R was searched, a plastic bag was found upon him in his rear right R
pocket, and that contained the 106 grammes of ketamine that we
S S
are concerned with today.
T T
3. He said he was taking care of the “K chai” for a
U friend and did not receive any reward. There was a more detailed U
CRT31/23.7.2015/KS 1 DCCC 469/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
admission in a subsequent video-recorded interview. He said that
his friend had asked him to take the “K chai” up to the
B B
2nd floor and wait there.
C C
4. The value of the ketamine concerned in this case is
D estimated to be $29,264. D
E E
5. The defendant admits that he had the ketamine in his
possession for the purpose of trafficking in it.
F F
G 6. As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, G
there is, and I have seen, a statement which has been admitted.
H He is aged 21. He was educated up to Secondary 3 level in Hong H
Kong. He has in the past been a transportation worker. He has a
I I
son, aged 3. He has one previous conviction for an unrelated
offence involving dealing with goods to which the Dutiable
J J
Commodities Ordinance applies, for which he was fined.
K K
7. The defendant’s son is currently cared for by his
L aunt. Nevertheless, it is a factor to be considered that he will L
be deprived of the society of his father for some time as a
M result of any sentence imposed today. It appears that the wife, M
or the mother of the child, is no longer on the scene.
N N
8. As far as general mitigation is concerned, I am
O O
referred to the defendant’s plea of guilty, his young age - he
P is only 21; the fact that he has no previous convictions of a P
similar nature, and the conviction he has had is a relatively
Q minor offence for which he was fined; that he has family Q
responsibilities towards his child that he will not be able to
R R
discharge; and that he is broadly supported by his wider family;
that the defendant is remorseful, and that this is shown in the
S S
letter that he has written to the court.
T T
9. As far as the sentence is concerned, it is accepted by
U the parties here that there is a generally applicable tariff to U
CRT31/23.7.2015/KS 2 DCCC 469/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
cases of trafficking in dangerous drugs, especially ketamine,
and that the amount of drug that we are concerned with here is
B B
106 grammes of ketamine.
C C
10. The guidelines are largely derived from the quantity
D of drug concerned. In this case, the relevant category is that D
between 50 and 300 grammes, where sentence can range or should
E E
range between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. These are guideline
recommendations for sentence. They are there to ensure
F F
consistency in sentencing.
G G
11. For this quantity of drug, the starting point for
H sentence should range between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. H
I I
12. There are a number of compelling mitigating factors
here, especially the defendant’s youth and his family situation.
J J
Nevertheless, they do not seem to be sufficient to take the case
K
outside of the range of guideline sentencing. K
L 13. What I shall do is take the starting point as being L
the lowest figure on the guideline; that is, 6 years’
M imprisonment, as the starting point. There is a deduction of M
one-third from that, which is 2 years, which leaves a final
N N
sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment for this offence.
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
(T Casewell)
District Judge
T T
U U
CRT31/23.7.2015/KS 3 DCCC 469/2015/Sentence
V V