HKSAR v. Hau Ka Kit

HCCC 276/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 276 OF 2016

_______________

_______________

_____________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_____________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity in the Magistrate’s Court to trafficking in a dangerous drug, consisting of 2,928 g of a crystalline solid containing 2,805 g of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as Ice. The retail value of the drugs is estimated at $1,153,632. In light of the seriousness of the offence, the defendant was committed to this Court for sentencing.

2.The facts giving rise to the offence are that in the early morning on 19 May 2015, at about 0523 hours, police observed the defendant holding a paper box and trying to enter Yuet Yuen Mansion on Mong Kok Road in Mongkok, Kowloon.  The defendant eventually entered the building by following a person in and this aroused the suspicion of the police.  They in turn followed the defendant who they observed leaving the paper box outside Room 121 on the 1^st floor of the building.  The police then intercepted the defendant who shouted that the “pork” was not his.  The expression “pork” is a reference to Ice.  The police examined the box and found three bags which were later confirmed to be the quantity of Ice as particularised in the offence to which the defendant has pleaded guilty. 

3.In a subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant denied any knowledge of the box and its contents and claimed that he merely went to the building to use the toilet there. 

4.An examination of the defendant’s mobile phone recovered a message where reference was made to “half a pig”.  He claimed that this was used for work but as agreed by the defendant, “half a pig” is a term used in the drug trade to mean 14 g of Ice. 

5.The defendant admits and accepts that he knowingly had all the drugs as particularised in the offence for the purpose of unlawfully trafficking.

6.There is very little, if any, mitigation that can be advanced on behalf of the defendant.  The defendant is 32 years old and was born in Hong Kong.  From his early youth, he has been constantly in trouble with the law and has a string of prior convictions from the age of 14 years to the present.  The prior convictions consist of offences of dishonesty, violence and one for drugs which was for simple possession.  He has also shown disrespect generally for the law by failing to answer police and court bail on various occasions.

7.The defendant received education up to secondary school Form 3 level.  He is single.  He claims that at the time of the offence he was living in a flat in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon with his girlfriend and was employed as a delivery man.  Some six months prior to the offence, he had been discharged from prison after a short term of imprisonment for offences relating to shoplifting and assault. 

8.Mr Kevin Egan, counsel for the defendant, submitted in mitigation that even though the defendant claimed he was not a drug abuser, he in fact has been addicted to Ice since 2003 and that in part explains his criminal record.  He points out that except for the offence of possessing and using a false instrument in 2005, his previous convictions received relatively minor forms of punishment.  He notes that he was ordered to attend a drug addiction treatment centre in 2004 but was unable to shake off his drug dependency.  He submits that his abuse of drugs and vulnerability lead him into the present offence.  He was taken advantage of because of his need to support his drug habit and was offered a reward of $35,000 for the delivery. 

9.Mr Egan also described the defendant’s family circumstances.  Both his parents suffer with disabilities and are living off welfare assistance.  He was in a steady relationship with his girlfriend for four years but his drug addiction got the better of him.  I will bear these matters in mind when fixing an appropriate starting point.

10.The tariff guideline for trafficking in this quantity of Ice is set out in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691. It fixes a tariff for a narcotic content of over 600 g of Ice of 18 years’ imprisonment and upwards and further provides that for very large quantities of over 600 g the principles laid down in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 should apply.  So far as material, it fixes a tariff guideline for 1,200 to 4,000 g of 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment. 

11.Based on the narcotic content of the drug in the present case, namely, 2,805 g, and the matters submitted by Mr Egan on behalf of the defendant, a starting point, according to the tariff guideline, of 24 years’ imprisonment would be imposed.  The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty plea and this will result in a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment.

Ms Sabra Lo, SPP (Ag) of Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Mr Kevin B Egan, instructed by C.O. Yu & Co, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant