|
HCCC 220/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 220 OF 2014
-----------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Chan Wing-ning |
|
| ------------------ |
| Before: |
Hon Andrew Chan J |
| Date: |
2 February 2015 at 10.47 am |
| Present: |
Mr Christopher Grounds, on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Kamlesh Arjan Sadhwani, instructed by Krishnan & Tsang, for the 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: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drug. On the material day, the defendant was intercepted by a police officer on patrol. In a bag which the defendant was carrying at the time, police officer found 14.63 grammes of methamphetamine (“Ice”) and 11 resealable plastic bags. The street value of the “Ice” was estimated to be HK$6,300.
The defendant is 40 and has a history of drug addiction. He also has a number of criminal convictions of which five relate to dangerous drugs. Given his drug history, it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that a third of the “Ice” was used for his own consumption. The prosecution is not disputing that. Given that concession, the defendant was at the time still in possession of 10 grammes of “Ice” for the purpose of trafficking.
Guidelines on sentencing are clear. Starting point for trafficking in 10 grammes of “Ice” is one of 7 years’ imprisonment. Although possession of dangerous drug itself also attracts a penalty, however, in the present case, given the amount for his own consumption and therefore possession is not huge and that it would have made very little difference had the whole amount been sentenced on the base of trafficking, I therefore will not take that part into my consideration of sentence. This is one of those cases where part consumption and part trafficking makes virtually no difference in sentencing.
The only mitigating circumstance in this case is the defendant’s plea, and he will be given a third discount for that. In conclusion, for the offence which the defendant has pleaded, he is therefore sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
|