|
DCCC 1080/2018
[2019] HKDC 1585
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1080 OF 2018
---------------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
LIN CHING HIM (D1) |
|
----------------------------
| Present: |
Mr Chan Ka Lok Michael, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR |
|
Ms Ko Cho Wing Stephanie, instructed Wong & Co, for the 1st defendant |
| Offence: |
[1] & [2] Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
-----------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
-----------------------------------------
1. In this case, the defendant pleaded guilty to and convicted of two counts of “Trafficking in a Dangerous Drugs”. The full facts have been set out earlier and I will not repeat them. Suffice it would be to say that for the 1st count he was found on the ground floor of his home in Yuen Long and on his person there were 1.3 grammes of ketamine.
2. Upon house search, the police seized a total 12.22 grammes of ketamine a quantity of plastic bags and an electronic scale in his home. All these, apart from his plea, led me to the inevitable conclusion that he must be weighing them and repacking them for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
3. Offences of this kind have been fully considered by the Court of Appeal and very clear sentencing guideline had been set out in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR 7/2006 and CACC 126/2007, [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. For the first count, the trafficking of a total of 1.3 grammes, falls within the 1 to 30 grammes bracket and by calculation the starting point should be 25 months. For the 2nd count, the 12.22 grammes falls within the 10 to 50 grammes bracket warranting a sentence of 4 to 6 years. The starting point should be 49 months’ imprisonment.
4. As the two offences took place within a very short time and in close proximity, I consider it more appropriate to order part of the sentence to run consecutive.
Mitigation
5. I then turn to consider the background of the defendant and the mitigating factors put forward by his counsel. The defendant is aged 28 and he had one previous transgression in 2018, albert of a different nature. Apparently, he came from a well-off family who ran a trading business. He worked as a warehouse manager, making $22,000 per month. He lived with a girlfriend and together with their baby.
6. All these factors are not really relevant since the principle for sentencing adopted in trafficking in dangerous drugs is one of deterrence. The court must send out a very clear statement to the members of the public and also the offender himself/herself that such offences will not be tolerated as a deterrent to the society in general. Therefore, I do not consider anything in his background, would justify any additional exercise of leniency.
7. The only relevant factor for reducing sentence is his plea of guilty. Therefore, for the 1st count, 25 months will be reduced to 16 months. Whereas for the 2nd count, 49 months will be reduced to 32 months.
8. As has been stated earlier, the court considers the two offences had been committed in close proximity. Therefore, I order 1 month of the 1st count to run consecutive to that in the 2nd count. In all, the defendant is to serve for both offences a total of 33 months.
|