HKSAR v. Satwinder Singh

DCCC 809/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL ACTION NO 809 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR VERDICT

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

Charge

1.The defendant is facing one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 of the Laws of Hong Kong.

2.The particulars of the charge are: the defendant on the 9^th day of June, 2016, at staircase No 6, 2nd Floor, Block C, Chungking Mansions, No 40 Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 13.3 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 12.9 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (generally referred to as “Ice”).

3.On the day of trial, the defendant pleaded guilty to simple possession of the drugs for his own use, he denied trafficking.   The trial went on. 

Common ground

4.The defendant is 25 years old.  He came from India to Hong Kong in year 2013.  He later became a torture claimant.

5.He received no financial subsidy from the government.  He managed to rent a cubicle in To Kwa Wan area to live.

6.He is a hardened drug addict.  In fact, two days after he was arrested, he was detained in the reception centre where his urine was tested positive for Ice, cocaine and cannabis.

7.On the evening in question, he acquired the dangerous drugs from an alley in Chungking Mansions. The alley was presumably situated on or near the ground level.

8.With the dangerous drugs on hand, he did not go straight out to the street and leave but instead he made a detour within the building.  He walked to the 4th floor where, to his dismay, he was noticed by some uniformed policemen.

9.The defendant ran a long way but was eventually subdued on the 2nd floor.  Under caution, he remained silent.  He was later brought to the police station.  He was soon taken to court.  The court remanded him in custody, as said, at the reception centre.

10.The drug seized from the defendant was one whole bag of Ice of both gross and net weight of about 13 grammes (details in the charge sheet).  He also carried cash HK$1,600 when being arrested.

Evaluation

11.Defendant is guilty. That is certain.  The only question is of what charge, simple possession or trafficking.   The fact that he made a detour at first and fled upon police approach did not infer trafficking.  He could have done it because he was afraid of being caught for simple possession.

12.The packing was one big bulk, not of readily disposable distributable small packets.

13.The cash found from the defendant came in hundreds ($1,600).  They were not small note changes, a feature  which is expected of drug hawkers.

14.The defendant did not live in Chungking Mansions.  This is therefore not a case where a trafficker was caught leaving his home, taking along with him a big load of drugs.  It is not certain whether the defendant was heading straight home in To Kwa Wan or was he going anywhere else.  No trafficking inference could be drawn.

15.The drugs are expensive.  Inspector testified that it was worth some HK$4,000 but at the same time inspector admitted that lucky buyer, rarely though, can make a $1,000 deal which is only a possibility, he said.  Either way, the drugs are not cheap. Prosecution is trying to postulate that the defendant must have trafficked in drugs to finance his habit and his daily expenses, or else it asked, where did the money come from?  To this though, I think some other unfavourable inferences could be equally drawn against the defendant.  He could have robbed or stolen or cheated to get the money.  He did not have to deal in drugs. There could be other evil explanation of his income, not necessarily trafficking in drugs.

16.The remaining point is quantity which this court takes judicial notice that a regular drug user uses less and a hardened addict uses more and perhaps more types. 

17.The defendant testified that he gradually increased his daily dosage of Ice of up to 1.5 grammes.  Despite powerful cross-examination by the very able prosecutor, the defendant remained unshaken on this point and in fact on other areas.  This court thus believes in the defendant’s evidence in that he regularly received father’s remittance from India.

18.The 13 grammes seized therefore lasted for slightly more than a week.  The quantity is not excessive for this heavy user and it is hard for the prosecution to thereby draw to trafficking; in fact, the evidence is not even close.

Conclusion

19.This court believes in the defendant’s evidence and accordingly rules in his favour.  He is acquitted of the trafficking charge, but upon his plea and agreement to possession, he is convicted instead of the lesser charge of simple possession.