|
HCCC 271/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 271 OF 2012
-----------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Huang Ho-fung |
|
| ----------------- |
| Date: |
5 March 2013 at 10.27 am |
| Present: |
Mr Martyn Richmond, on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Ching Wan-fung, instructed by Cheung & Yip, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, 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 pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
The defendant was intercepted by police officers who laid ambush outside the premises in question whilst he was opening the iron grille. Drugs were found inside the plastic bag that he was holding, weighing approximately 250 grammes.
He told the police that he had hidden another bag in his underpants, and that weighed approximately the same as the first bag. Under caution, he said that he helped others to distribute the drugs for a reward.
Entrance to the premises was gained by using the keys found on him. Inside were four bags of drugs, each weighing approximately also 250 grammes. There was also a dehumidifier being turned on.
The defendant reiterated that he was acting under instructions of others to distribute the drugs, and he would be paid approximately $400 per packet.
Upon analysis, the drugs were found to be 1.49 kilograms of a powder containing 1.27 kilograms of ketamine. The retail value of the drugs was about $172,840.
I am told that the defendant is aged 18. He has a clear record. By way of mitigation, I am told that prior to his arrest, he worked as a delivery worker, earning approximately $9,000 a month. He committed the present offence because of financial difficulty and out of foolishness. He wished to earn quick money to ease his stringent circumstances. He has now learned a bitter lesson, is remorseful, and wishes to further his studies during his period of incarceration. His counsel urges me to pass a lenient sentence on this young gentleman.
In sentencing the defendant, I have considered his guilty plea, mitigation forwarded by counsel on his behalf, and the existing tariff for trafficking in ketamine. I have also perused letters in mitigation written by the defendant, his mother, and others. I do bear in mind his clear record.
However, when it comes to trafficking offences, unblemished record and family circumstances play little or no part and do not constitute any extra circumstances which call for discount extra to that attracted by a guilty plea.
For trafficking in ketamine weighing over 1 kilogram, a starting point of 14 years upwards is to be adopted. In the present case the narcotics involved is about 1.2 kilograms.
I adopt a starting point of 14½ years’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to one-third discount for his guilty plea, and he is sentenced to 116 months’ imprisonment; that is, 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
|