HKSAR v. Hui Chi Long

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 937/2015 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 29 February 2016.

2. About 1:40 p.m. on 25 August 2015, PCs 19157 and 58472, who were in plainclothes, saw the defendant wandering in the 12 th Floor lift lobby of Oi Lok House, Yau Oi Estate, Tuen Mun.  Upon seeing the officers, the defendant immediately turned and walked away.  The officers stopped him for enquiry.

Case No.DCCC 937/2015
Court
District Court
Date29 Feb 2016
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 937/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 937 OF 2015

____________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  HUI Chi-long  

____________

Before: H.H. Judge G. Lam
Date: 29 February 2016
Present: Mr. Francis LO, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR.
Mr. William HUI instructed by M/s Chan & Tsu, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant.
Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drug(販運危險藥物)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved is methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as "ICE").

Summary of Facts

2.About 1:40 p.m. on 25 August 2015, PCs 19157 and 58472, who were in plainclothes, saw the defendant wandering in the 12th Floor lift lobby of Oi Lok House, Yau Oi Estate, Tuen Mun.  Upon seeing the officers, the defendant immediately turned and walked away.  The officers stopped him for enquiry.

3.Upon search, PC 19157 found in the defendant's right front trouser pocket 1 plastic bag containing 3 plastic bags which contained a total of 7.72 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 7.52 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

4.In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he is not a drug addict and that he resides at Oi Ming House, Yau Oi Estate.  His residence was searched, but nothing incriminating was found.

5.The defendant now admits that he possessed the "ICE" for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Mitigation & Sentence

6.The defendant is 19[1] and has 8 conviction records, most of which are offences related to violence.  His first conviction is dated April 2009 when he was only 12.  The court has dealt with him by way of Probation Order, Reformatory School Order, Rehabilitation Centre Order and Detention Centre Order.  Defence counsel Mr. HUI informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his mother and elder sister.  He started working when he completed Primary 6 at the age of 16.  Prior to the present offence, he was a construction worker earning $14,000 per month.

7.In mitigation, Mr. HUI submitted that the defendant was diagnosed with Hyperactivity and Mania when he was 5.  He has been receiving regular treatment at the Psychiatric Department of Tuen Mun Hospital.  Mr. HUI also submitted that in the present case, the defendant acted as a courier in order to earn some extra money.

8.Drug abuse has always been a problem in our society, and the HKSAR is determined to fight the battle against drugs in all aspects (from education, crime detection to recovery of proceeds of drug trafficking).  A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" is a serious crime and that drug traffickers would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment even for fresh young offenders, so that there is a deterrent effect.

9.I am aware of the defendant's age and his emotional disorder, which could have been an explanation (but not an excuse) for his previous violence-related offences.  I also bear in mind that this is his 1st drug-related offence.  I accept that as a general principle, rehabilitation (rather than punishment) plays an important role in reforming young offenders.  On the other hand, in the past few years, I have seen a steady (if not increasing) number of young persons in my court being charged with "drug trafficking".  Many of them were just like the defendant – persons in their late teens or early 20s being used by others as "couriers".

10.When young people realize that the court would not treat young drug traffickers lightly, there would be, hopefully, fewer willing "couriers"; thus making it difficult for criminals to exploit our youngsters.  Unless the quantity of dangerous drugs involved is minor or exceptional circumstances exist, a wrong message would be sent to young people if they could avoid imprisonment owing to their age. Undoubtedly, most of them are "used" by bad persons (or so they claim).  That is the reason why we need to make young people think twice before they agree to be "used".

11.The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ICE (see A-G v CHING Kwok-hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125).  For up to 10 grammes, the sentence ranges from 3 to 7 years' imprisonment.  In the present case, the defendant trafficked in 7.52 grammes of ICE, the appropriate starting point is 6 years.  A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 4 years.   As an act of mercy, I am prepared to grant a further reduction of 4 months for the defendant's emotional disorder. I sentence him to 44 months' imprisonment.

12.I invite the Commissioner of Correctional Services to arrange for the defendant to continue to receive the necessary treatment for his emotional disorder.

(G. Lam)
District Judge

[1] Although the defendant is under 21, by virtue of section 109A(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap.221), I need not obtain any pre-sentencing report.