HKSAR v. Chu Shun Man

HCCC 15/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 15 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. You admitted that on 11 August 2015, at Mong Kok, Kowloon, you unlawfully trafficked in 27.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 27.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

On 11 August, at about 4.15 pm, a police officer patrolling at Fa Yuen Street spotted you wandering and looking around. As you were about to hail a taxi, the officer intercepted you for inquiry. Upon search of your sling bag, the officer found a tinfoil bag which contained the drugs as stated in the charge. Under caution, you claimed you had just bought the ‘Ice’ for $2,000 for your own consumption. You asked for a chance.

During the subsequent video-recorded interview, you said that you had a part-time job as a cleaner and a construction site worker earning $450 a day. You resided at a guesthouse in Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok, alone, the daily rent of which was $300.

In the afternoon of that day, you purchased the drugs and you were intending to take the drugs home for your own consumption. The seized drugs were sufficient for your own consumption for approximately two to three weeks. You had purchased a larger quantity of drugs as you would be busy at work and you used a bottle to consume ‘Ice’.

Despite your claim the drugs were all for your own consumption, you now admit and accept that you were trafficking in ‘Ice’.

Defendant, you are 36 years of age and you have 13 previous convictions. Of those, four are related to dangerous drugs and all of them are for possession of dangerous drugs. You are educated up to secondary 3 level. You earn a monthly salary of approximately $14,000 and at the time of this offence, you were a drug-dependant.

Your counsel, Mr David Boyton, has informed this court that the majority of the drugs, or a substantial part of the drugs were for your own consumption. In support of his mitigation, he relies upon the medical report as he has submitted, rather it is a urine test report from the Chief Superintendent at Stanley Prison which states that shortly after your arrest and admission into Lai Chi Kok, your urine specimen tested positive for amphetamines which is a derivative of methamphetamine hydrochloride. That is the same drug as was found in your possession.

On top of that, Mr Boyton refers to your previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs. Your last conviction, you were sentenced to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and upon arrest for the present offence, you were recalled to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre for your dependency and you were released only on 25 November 2015.

Mr Boyton has said there is truth to your mitigation that almost all was for your own consumption as you had told the police that immediately upon your arrest. You had only one bag of drugs on you which is consistent that it was for your own use. At the time, you were about to hail a taxi to go home and to take drugs. You stayed in a part-time hotel as that means you would be away from your family when you took drugs.

I am satisfied and accept that a substantial part of these drugs were for your own consumption.

You had been, however, trafficking in 27.1 grammes of ‘Ice’. The most recent guidelines for trafficking in ‘Ice’ was laid down in the case of Tam Yi Chun. For that amount of ‘Ice’, it falls in the bracket of a starting point, after trial, for trafficking of between 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment.

Given the quantity of drugs in this case, had you been convicted after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment. As I have accepted that a substantial part of the drugs were for your own consumption, I am allowing a discount to the basic starting point of 10 per cent. In the circumstances, the sentencing point for you on this charge is one of 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

As Mr Boyton says, your strongest mitigating factor is your plea of guilty. For that, I apply a discount of one-third, and the resulting term to which you shall serve shall be one of 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.