HKSAR v. Siu Cheuk Fung

DCCC 149/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 149 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.Two young drug dealers (D1-19, D2-14) were arrested in the street by the police while they were engaging in drug trafficking activities. The amount of drugs seized is 6.12 grammes of a solid containing 5.51 grammes of cocaine.

2.Both defendants had earlier on indicated that they would plead guilty to a joint charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs in the plea court and the case was set down before me for plea and sentence.

3.D1 pleaded guilty to the charge of trafficking but D2 failed to turn up for plea, the court has thus issued a warrant for his arrest.

4.In the small hours of 3 December 2016, police officers on car patrol spotted the duo acting suspiciously outside a secondary school in Sau Mau Ping, Kwun Tong, and alighted to approach them for questioning.

5.Upon seeing the police, D1 took to his heels throwing a packet onto the ground while running away, but D2 remained on the spot. After a brief chase, officers apprehended D1 and recovered the packet that D1 had thrown away a moment ago.

6.The packet is a re-sealable bag inside which there are 29 smaller plastic bags containing the drugs in question. The street value of the drugs is estimated to be around $6,700.

7.It became clear from what they had told the police afterwards how the young boys conducted their drug business –

“Messages to buy drugs were first sent to D2’s mobile phone, they would then deliver the drugs to the customers at the places as arranged, D1 would carry the drugs and leave the proceeds in D2’s keeping.”

8.At the time of arrest, officers found a lot of cash on D2; HK$20,120 and RMB$300 in D2’s right front trousers pocket and HK$2,581.80 in the left front trousers pocket. Insofar as the cash found in the right trousers pocket is concerned, both defendants admitted they are the proceeds of their crime.

9.Before being apprehended by the police, the duo had already been to many different places in Tsuen Wan, Mong Kok and Kwun Tong for drug transactions.

10.In D2’s mobile phone, police found 122 call records within the day prior to his arrest, 38 of them were related to one particular number the messages contained therein were indicative of there being some kind of drug transactions going on.

11.D1 has one previous conviction – in November 2014, he was placed on probation for the offence of possession of drugs.

12.D1’s parents divorced each other when he was only 9-year-old, thereafter he has been living with his father and grandmother. D1 was only educated up to Form 3 level, and he has not been able to stay long in any one job. At the time of arrest, D1 was out of work, that’s the reason why he committed the present offence, counsel said.

13.In his letter to the court, D1’s father said that his son was basically a good-natured and simple-minded boy, and because of this, he was easily manipulated by others. It was a terrible shock to him to hear his child committing such a grave offence, and pleaded for a lenient sentence on his behalf. He believed that his son had learned a salutary lesson and would try to get his life back on track after release from prison.

14.There are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence, for trafficking in an amount up to 10 grammes of cocaine, a term of 2 to 5 years is to be considered.

15.For the amount D1 admitted trafficking, I take 44 months as starting point, the fact that he was acting in concert with another person is an aggravating factor, I would add 3 months on top to take the starting point to 47 months.

16.As far as mitigation is concerned, apart from his guilty plea, there isn’t anything of substance. The appellate court has on many occasions reiterated the seriousness of the offence of trafficking by saying that clean record as well as young age (unless extreme youth) are not substantial mitigation.

17.D1 is entitled to one-third discount for his plea, so it is reduced to 31 months. As there being no reason for further reduction in sentence, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 31 months’ imprisonment.