HKSAR v. CHAN CHI SUM

DCCC430/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 430 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

2. At about 5.50 pm on 11 January this year, the police entered Room 624, 6th Floor, Block 21, Shek Kip Mei Estate, Kowloon, Hong Kong, (“the premises”), with a search warrant.  The defendant was inside the premises.

3. Upon search, SDPC49216 found a dice box containing a resealable transparent plastic bag which contained three bags of suspected dangerous drugs (“E1”) and a resealable transparent plastic bag containing eight bags of suspected dangerous drugs (“E2”) inside the drawer of a cabinet in the living room.  He also found inside the same drawer:

(1) A resealable transparent plastic bag containing 100 empty resealable transparent plastic bags;

(2) Another resealable transparent plastic bag containing 94 empty resealable transparent plastic bags; and

(3) A set of electronic scales.

4. DPC4314 then arrested the defendant for trafficking in a dangerous drug. 

5. Under caution, the defendant admitted that the ketamine was for his own consumption.

6. At the time of arrest, the defendant was in possession of two mobile telephones.

7. The government chemist certified, after examination,  that E1 contained a total of 7.22 grammes of a powder containing 3.96 grammes of ketamine whilst E2 contained a total of 5.87 grammes of a powder containing 2.73 grammes of ketamine. 

8. In a subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he had bought the ketamine from a male called Joe at HK$1,000 the day before.  He claimed that he had a habit of sniffing ketamine. However, the defendant now admits that he possessed E1 and E2 for the purpose of trafficking.

The defendant’s background and mitigation

9. The defendant is 23 years old.  He is single but lives with his girlfriend.  He used to work as a junior assistant in a salon earning about $8,000 per month.  He contributed $2,000 per month to his father who was separated from the defendant’s mother.

10. Last year the defendant became a freelance hairdresser.  He held that job until May this year.  He has been performing volunteer work cutting hair for the elderly in the Sham Shui Po area for the last two years.

11. He has four previous convictions, none of which are drug-related.

12. Counsel submitted that the only mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea.  The defendant is well aware of the sentencing guidelines in this type of cases. 

Sentence

13. In passing sentence, I have taken into consideration everything that has been said on the defendant’s behalf.

14. Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  I understand that the defendant is still a young offender. However, trafficking in a dangerous drug is an excepted offence.  The court is not required to consider all sentencing options before passing a sentence of imprisonment.

15. According to the sentencing guidelines in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323, the appropriate starting point for trafficking in 1 to 10 grammes of ketamine is 2 to 4 years.  The quantity of drugs involved in this case was close to 7 grammes.  The defendant admitted that all the drugs seized were for the purposes of trafficking.

16. I adopt the starting point of 3½ years.  I give the defendant full credit for his guilty plea.  The sentence is reduced to 28 months.