HKSAR v. Cheung Sau Chung

HCCC 333/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 333 OF 2015

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendantpleaded guilty before a magistrate to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, the background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

The defendant was found inside the room at a domestic flat. Inside the room, dangerous drugs were found on the table. The following items were also found: a roll of aluminium foil; a pair of scissors; a stack of resealable transparent plastic bags; a roll of adhesive tapes; an electronic scale; and cash of around $4,000.

Under caution, the defendant said he had just answered the phone and took the dangerous drugs for sale. It was a part‑time job and this was the first day he went there to work.

I was told that the defendant is 28 years old. He received education up to Form 3 and had worked as a transportation worker. He was living with a young lady, 20 years of age, who is a housewife. They have a son and a daughter.

The defendant is not a first-time offender. In 2007, when he was 20 years old, he was convicted of a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was sentenced to receive training at a Training Centre. He had also been convicted of three offences relating to indecent articles for which he was fined. He managed to keep out of trouble since July 2009.

Learned defence counsel, Mr Chong, urged me to take into account that the defendant is remorseful and had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. A letter written by the defendant was produced in which he indicated his remorse. Mr Chong also impressed upon me the defendant is a responsible person, a good partner and a good father.

He planned to marry his girlfriend this February, but this has to be postponed. He worked in two jobs and earned about $10,000 a month. He contributed most of his income to his family. He was in grave financial difficulties, so the defendant succumbed to temptation of a promise reward of $1,000 and committed the offence.

The dangerous drugs the defendant trafficked in were: 13.70 grammes of a solid containing 12.04 grammes of cocaine; 53.21 grammes of a mixture containing 41.03 grammes of heroin hydrochloride; 195.51 grammes of a solid and crystalline solid containing 191.58 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride; and 471.50 grammes of a solid and powder containing 210 grammes of ketamine.

In consideration, I have had regard to HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong CACC 318/2013 and the cases cited in it.

I have also borne in mind the danger of mathematical progression causing injustice.

In the present case, “Ice” was the most serious drug in terms of potency. Cocaine and heroin attract the same level of tariff. Highest in quantity was ketamine. In my judgment, it is most appropriate to adopt the conversion approach and apply the tariff for “Ice”.

For the quantity alone, a starting point of around 14 years is called for. This case is serious and has aggravating features that I have to take into account. The flat was obviously used to sell all kinds of dangerous drugs commonly consumed by abusers. A wide market was catered for. The stock was substantial.

Although no mixture of drugs had actually taken place, the potential risk of more harmful effect as a result of consumption of combination of drugs was present.

Mr Chong submitted that the defendant only played a minor role. There is no evidence that the defendant occupied a high position in the hierarchy, but no doubt he was entrusted to look after this drugs supply centre.

I note that the defendant had a previous record of trafficking in a dangerous drug. While the sentence was one of a Training Centre order and this may reflect that the case was not very serious, it is a matter which I should not totally ignore.

The existence of different types of dangerous drugs is a major aggravating factor, and for the matters I have just mentioned in my judgment the sentence should be enhanced by about one year.

In all the circumstances, I am of the view that only an ultimate starting point of 15 years is sufficient to reflect the nature and seriousness of the case. The defendant pleaded guilty and for this reason is entitled to a one‑third discount.

Having considered the whole circumstances, including what counsel has said on his behalf, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.

For the reasons I have mentioned, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 10 years.