|
DCCC 1035/2014
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL ACTION NO 1035 OF 2014
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
V |
|
| |
MASOOM PARVEZ |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
His Honour Judge Alex Lee |
| Present: |
Ms Amanda Whitfort, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR/Director of Public Prosecution |
| |
Mrs Panesar Mahinder M, instructed by Peter K H & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offences: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug（販運危險藥物） |
---------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---------------------------------------
1. The defendant is convicted on his own plea to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 11,940 grammes of cannabis resin, contrary to s 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
2. The facts are relatively straight-forward. On 4 September 2014, the defendant came to Hong Kong with a carton box from Kolkata via Mumbai, India by flight. He was selected for customs clearance at the airport and admitted to the customs officer at the counter that the carton box was his. When the carton box was opened for examination, it was found that there were five plates of cannabis resin with plastic wrapping at the bottom, concealed by food spices and instant noodles. The estimated total value of the cannabis resin was HK$823,860.
3. By way of background, the defendant is now aged 40. He is married with two young children. He, his family and parents all live in India. He is said to be a businessman earning about 10,000 to 50,000 rupees a month. He has a clear record in India and Hong Kong.
4. Mrs Panesar, counsel for the defendant, has said all that could be said for him. Mrs Panesar is realistic to stress that the major mitigating factor is the timely plea, which saves the court’s time and indicates the defendant’s remorse. The defendant also said that he took the carton box to Hong Kong as a favour for someone whom he met at the airport. Although the defendant knew that the carton box contained dangerous drugs, he was foolish enough not to say no.
5. As far as the starting point is concerned, according to Attorney General v Tuen Shui-ming & Another [1995] 2 HKCLR 129, trafficking in over 9,000 grammes of cannabis resin calls for an imprisonment term of 4 years and upwards. In HKSAR v Sherpa Chhewan Gyabu (CACC 220/1998), the Court of Appeal said the appropriate starting point for trafficking in 13 kg of cannabis resin is 5 years’ imprisonment. In HKSAR v GurungSuraj (CACC 225/2014), McWalters JA refused to grant leave for appeal against a sentence after plea of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for trafficking in 15.2 kg of cannabis resin. It is noted that the starting point adopted by the sentencing judge, which was one of 5 years, had taken into account the presence of international element in that case.
6. Having taken into account the facts of the present case and the mitigation, I adopt 4 years and 6 months as the starting point and increase it by 3 months for the international element to 4 years and 9 months. The defendant’s clear record is subsumed within the one-third discount for the plea. After the deduction, the defendant’s sentence is 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
|
( Alex Lee )
|
|
District Judge |
|