HKSAR v. CHAN KAM HUNG

HCCC 420/2017

[2018] HKCFI 848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 420 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. In sentencing, I have taken into consideration the whole circumstances of the case including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

The defendant was stopped at the Lok Ma Chau border crossing point when he returned to Hong Kong from the mainland. In his rucksack two packets both contained heroin were found. Under caution, he admitted to be trafficking in a drug on behalf of an uncle. He said he did not do it for a reward. He did this as a token of gratitude as the uncle had lent him money during his financial crisis.

I was told that the defendant was 26 years of age at the time of arrest. He has received education up to a higher diploma level and had been working as an assistant clerk in a private hospital since 2014. He is single. He had not committed any offence before.

In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Mr Li, urged the court to take into account that the defendant is in true remorse and he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. He also stressed that the defendant committed the offence not because of greed but quite foolishly in the circumstances the defendant described under caution. He said the defendant is determined to turn over a new leaf. This is the only conviction the defendant has. With the full support of the family and the church the chance of the defendant reoffending is minimal.

The defence produced letters written by the defendant himself, his parents and the church. In his letter the defendant expressed remorse. In the other letters it was said that the defendant is of good nature. Parents said that the defendant had been a filial and responsible member of the family. They also pointed out that the eyesight of the defendant has been deteriorating. The chaplain noticed a great deal of positive change of the defendant and wrote the mitigation letter on his own volition. Both the parents and the chaplain asked for leniency on the defendant’s behalf.

The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was 693 grammes of a solid containing 553 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. The Court of Appeal suggested in the case of R v Lau Tak Ming [1992] HKLR 370 that a sentence of 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment should be considered for trafficking in heroin if the narcotic content is 400 to 600 grammes. Having considered the whole circumstances I do not find there are good grounds to depart from the tariff. I have to take into account that the defendant had taken the dangerous drug into Hong Kong and for this reason the starting point should be enhanced by one year.

In all the circumstances I consider an ultimate starting point of 19 years and 3 months is appropriate. The defendant pleaded guilty as soon as the matter was dealt with by a magistrate and it is for this reason he is entitled to one-third discount. In all the circumstances, having regard to mitigation I am persuaded that a further discount of 4 months can be given to the defendant.

For the reasons I have said I sentence you to a prison term of 12½ years.