|
HCCC297/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 297 OF 2009
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Lai Yiu-kee (A1) |
|
| |
Ching Chi-kong (A2) |
|
----------------------
| Before: |
The Honourable M Poon J |
| Date: |
18 March 2010 at 10.00 am |
| Present: |
Miss Grace Chan, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Victor Lee Kwok-chuen, instructed by Messrs Cheng & Wong, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Accused
Mr Ken Ng Kin-man, instructed by Edmund W.H. Chow & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, 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: The defendants plead 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.
Each of them was observed to be carrying a shoulder bag acting furtively. They were later spotted inside a restaurant. D2 was stopped by the police when he was leaving. A body search on him revealed nothing suspicious. D1 was then intercepted inside the restaurant and was found to be in physical possession of two bags of drugs.
Under caution he admitted knowledge of the drugs but said that he escorted D2 in bringing them back to Hong Kong from China and that D2 would deliver them to someone and he merely acted as a look out. D2, under caution, however, denied knowledge of the contents of the bag. He merely said that he escorted D1 to bring them back to Hong Kong.
Under analysis the powder inside the bags was found to weigh 991.27 grammes containing 813.53 grammes of ketamine. The market retail value of the drug seized was around HK$115,000.
D1 is aged 32 whilst D2 is aged 33. D1 has four previous - five convictions, three of which are drugs related. Back in 1994 he was convicted of a conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs. His last conviction was in 1998 for which he received a 4 year sentence for a robbery charge. He was last discharged from prison in 2001.
D2 has one previous conviction with two records, both are trafficking charges for which he received a total of 7 years’ imprisonment back in 1994. He was last discharged from prison in 1998.
By way of mitigation, it is said by D1’s counsel that D1 had managed to stay out of trouble since his last discharge from prison in 2001. He had started afresh, acquired a job and started his own family. Counsel urged me to take into consideration D1’s willingness and readiness to give evidence against D2 as indicated during the second pre-trial review. Counsel urged me to give D1 a further discount apart from the usual one-third.
D2’s counsel submitted that D2 had managed to keep out of trouble since 1998. He had aged parents, a wife and a young son to take care of.
In sentencing the defendants I have taken into account the nature of the offence, the drugs involved, its quantity and the sentencing tariff. I have perused contents of the mitigation letters and have also taken into account each defendant’s plea and mitigation forwarded by counsel on his behalf.
According to the guideline laid in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew-Cheng trafficking in 600 to 1000 grammes of ketamine warrants a starting point between 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment. The present case involves 813.53 grammes of ketamine. Taking into account circumstances of the case, I adopt a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment.
Although D2 only indicated his plea during the second pre-trial review, I am prepared to give him the normal one-third discount. He is sentenced to 104 months’ imprisonment which is 8 years and 8 months.
As for D1, whilst I note that he is the first amongst the two defendants to indicate his guilty plea, and no doubt, his offer to give evidence against D2 is instrumental to D2’s pleading guilty, I do not lose sight of the following facts.
During the first pre-trial review, D1, whilst indicating his plea of guilty, also indicated that he would give evidence for D2. It was only during the second pre-trial review that D1, whilst confirming his guilty plea, indicated his intention to give evidence for the prosecution against D2.
It was after this indication that D2 changed his plea to a guilty one.
Taking all these into account, apart from the one-third discount for plea, I shall give D1 an extra discount of 8 months. He is sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.
|