HKSAR v. Wu Yuk Cheung also known as Wu Siu Tung

DCCC 930/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 930 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.The offence occurred on 7 September of this year, in Boundary Street in Sham Shui Po.  What happened was that the defendant was intercepted by police.  There was a search of him, and inside, an object was found, wrapped in tissue paper in his shoulder bag.  Inside that was a transparent resealable plastic bag with 90 packets of what turned out to be heroin hydrochloride.   Totally, there was 11.5 grammes of the drug heroin hydrochloride. 

3.The defendant immediately said he purchased the drug for self-consumption, and the defendant expanded upon that in a video-recorded interview.  He said he had been asked by a person if he was interested to buy drugs at a discount.  He eventually(?) paid 5,600 for the drug. 

4.He consumed heroin three to four times a day, consuming three to four pellets a day. 

5.He was, in fact, a recipient of CSSA, receiving about $3,600 a month. 

6.The street value of the heroin is $11,951.10. The defendant accepts he is in possession of the heroin for the purpose of unlawful trafficking in it.     

7.As far as his antecedents are concerned, he is aged 60, an occasional decoration worker, single and lives alone in a room in Sham Shui Po.  He has a total of 72 previous appearances in court, the most recent being in 2014, for an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  He was only released from that on 30 May 2015. 

8.The defendant has a long series of convictions relating to petty crime and drug addiction.  In relation to his addiction, he has been sentenced both to imprisonment and also to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  Of relevance to the present case of previous convictions, trafficking in a dangerous drug, there are totally four of them.  In 2007, there was a sentence of 3 years for that offence; in 2010, a sentence of 18 months for that offence; 2012, a sentence of 16 months for that offence; finally, in 2014, a sentence of 14 months for that offence, which makes, in the past 8 years, from 2007 onwards, he has been sentenced for a total of 7 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in a dangerous drug.  The defendant has a very poor criminal record, both generally and also in relation to this particular offence.

9.In mitigation, two factors are raised.  Firstly, the defendant’s plea of guilty, and secondly, of relevance is the fact that the defendant has said part of the drugs would be for his own consumption.   The defendant estimated today that half of the drugs would be consumed by himself. That, of course, is a factor that could be taken into account in mitigating the length of the sentence of imprisonment. 

10.Turning to the sentence of imprisonment that would be imposed, sentences for trafficking in any dangerous drug are largely governed by tariffs or guideline sentence.  In this case, for the defendant, the quantity of the drug is 11.5 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, which puts it in the category of 10 to 50 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, which is a sentence range of between 5 to 8 years of imprisonment.  On the basis of this quantity alone, I will take a starting point of 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

11.There is, of course, an aggravating factor in this case, and that is the defendant’s persistent offending in the form of drug trafficking.  No doubt, this is the major form by which he supports his own drug addiction.  Nevertheless, the defendant has a particularly poor record, certainly in recent years, for traffic in dangerous drugs.  He appears to be a professional trafficker.  Clearly, sentences of imprisonment have failed to deter the defendant in the past, therefore, I will increase the sentence of imprisonment by a further 12 months to reflect that aggravating factor.  I therefore now have a starting point of 6 years 3 months, or 75 months.

12.As far as mitigating factors are concerned, the first factor is the defendant’s consumption of a part of the drug himself.  A deduction for this factor may range between 10 to 25 per cent of the original starting point. 

13.The defendant has been a drug addict for 37 years.  The drug in question is broken down into 90 packets.  It is available to be consumed.  The defendant no doubt, as I have said, finances his consumption of drugs through trafficking.  I accept there is evidence on which a deduction for self-consumption in this case can be based.  Rather than articulate a percentage, I will indicate that I will deduct 9 months from the present starting point of sentence.  This now gives a starting point of 66 months’ imprisonment. 

14.The second mitigating factor is the defendant’s plea of guilty.  He is entitled to a further one-third discount for that fact.

15.The further one-third discount will lead to a final sentence of 44 months’ imprisonment, or 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.  That is the figure I will impose.