|
HCCC275/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 275 OF 2008
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
CHENG WAI-HUNG (A1) |
|
| |
LEE SIU-CHUNG (A2) |
|
----------------------
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Lugar-Mawson in court
Date: 19 March 2009 at 11.09 am
|
Present:
|
Ms Fung Mei-ki, Mickey, on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Hanif M Mughal, instructed by Messrs A M Mui & Kwan, for the 1st Accused
Mr P Loftus, instructed by Messrs William Sin & So, 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: Cheng Wai-hung, Lee Siu-chung, please stand up.
It is clear that the police burst in on a dangerous drugs packing workshop, in which you were both heavily engaged in the work of packing ketamine into smaller quantities.
The law in Hong Kong regards trafficking in any type of dangerous drug as being a very serious criminal offence, so much so that the maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment.
Ketamine is a relatively new dangerous drug in Hong Kong. Quite why that should be, I have no idea, as its only legitimate use is for tranquillising horses. Nevertheless, it has become a very common drug of abuse, particularly by young men and women such as yourselves. Many young people have become habitual users of the filthy substance. It is regarded as a schedule 1 drug.
Recently the Court of Appeal have laid down very clear guidelines for all judges as to how we should sentence people who traffic in ketamine, and we are expected to stick to those guidelines.
The Court of Appeal says that if people are convicted of trafficking in ketamine, and the weight of the active quantity of ketamine in the substance ranges from 50 to 300 grammes, sentences after trial, after conviction by a jury, of between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment are to be imposed.
The Court of Appeal has made it clear that those are the sentences to be imposed after trial, after people have pleaded not guilty but have been found guilty by a jury. The Court of Appeal leaves it open to judges where within that range of 6 to 9 years we should sentence offenders.
After having regard to the active weight of the ketamine trafficked in, and from what I have been told by your respective counsel this morning, I accept that part of the ketamine you were dealing in was probably for your own consumption. And I am prepared to accept that some of it you would have shared with others, either for no payment or possibly just at cost. I have no doubt, however, that some of it, perhaps the larger quantity, was to be sold at a profit.
However, I have decided that had both of you taken this matter to trial and been convicted by a jury, I would have taken a starting point sentence for both of you of 7 years’ imprisonment.
There is nothing in your personal circumstances that I find of mitigating value. You are no longer teenagers, and you are by no means men of extreme youth. You are both in your 20s, early 20s.
I am treating both of you as equally guilty. The fact that you, Cheng Wai-hung have no criminal record is of very little relevance and only of marginal mitigating value in a dangerous drugs case. I know that you, Lee Siu-chung, only have one previous conviction for possession of a dangerous drug - ketamine needless to say - for which you have now served your probation order. As I said, I am treating you both as equally guilty and I am not increasing Lee’s sentence because of his previous conviction.
As both of your counsel said this morning, your only mitigation - your only real mitigation - is the fact that both of you have realistically pleaded guilty to this offence. By doing that you have saved the police trouble, in time and expense, as well as the court trouble, time and expense. It is well established that people who admit their guilt before the courts will receive a substantial discount in the sentence they would otherwise have received.
I already said that had you been found guilty by a jury of this offence I would have sentenced both of you, each one of you to 7 years’ imprisonment. That would have been amply justified by the guidelines the Court of Appeal have laid down for all judges to follow. Because of your pleas of guilty I am permitted to reduce that sentence by one-third.
If my mathematics are correct - I always stand to corrected by counsel - that will result in you receiving a sentence of 4 years and 8 months for your each offence. So that is the sentence you will both receive for this offence.
|