HKSAR v. Sze Wing Chung

DCCC 376/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 376 OF 2017

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved is cocaine.

Summary of Facts

2.About 9:20 p.m. on 27 February 2017, PC 16364 and other police officers stopped the defendant for enquiry outside Ground Floor, King Nam House, King Lam Estate, Tseung Kwan O.

3.Upon search, it was found (i) in the defendant's right sneaker, a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 15 smaller transparent resealable plastic bags which contained a total of 3.08 grammes of a solid containing 2.90 grammes of cocaine; (ii) in the defendant's left sneaker, a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 7 smaller transparent resealable plastic bags which contained a total of 1.43 grammes of a solid containing 1.37 grammes of cocaine; and (iii) in the defendant's right sock, a transparent resealable plastic bag which contained 0.19 gramme of a solid containing 0.18 gramme of cocaine.

4.Under caution, the defendant said "Ah Sir, these are cocaine.  I don't consume myself.  I sold them for $300 a pack. Please give me a chance." 

5.In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted, inter alia, that he engaged in drug trafficking at the time of arrest.  He purchased the cocaine from someone in Mongkok; the drug was already packaged in the manners they were found.  One of the mobile phones found on him (E10) was used for drug trafficking business.  The cash found in his left jeans pocket (in the sum of $4,400) was gained from selling drugs.

Mitigation & Sentence

6.The defendant is 21 and has a clear record.  Defence solicitor Mr. MAN informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his mother and younger brother, who is a year younger and is still in school.

7.In mitigation, Mr. MAN submitted that the defendant enrolled in a technical course after completing F.6.  He then worked as an electrician at a construction site earning about $30,000 per month.  He later lost his job because he was too junior (since most construction sites were looking for more qualified and experienced workers).  Furthermore, the defendant's father passed away in 2015 due to cancer.  When the defendant lost his job, the family lost a substantial income.  As a result, the defendant resorted to such a foolish way to earn some money.

8.Mr. MAN further submitted that the hardship suffered by the defendant's family did not stop there.  After the defendant's father passed away, the defendant's paternal grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer, thus forcing the defendant's paternal grandfather (aged 70 odd) to come out to work.  The defendant's mother now needs to look after her 2 sons as well as their 2 grandparents.  The defendant's is sorry for causing such tremendous trouble to his family.

9.Letters written by the defendant and his mother were placed before me; their contents are duly noted.

10.Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that having a sick family member or being in financial difficulty (however serious) is no mitigating factor for committing a crime.  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 offenders.

11.The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in cocaine (see Attorney General v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69 and The Queen v LAU Tak-ming & others [1990] 2 HKLR 370).  For up to 10 grammes, the sentence ranges from 2 to 5 years' imprisonment.  In the present case, the defendant trafficked in 4.45 grammes.  Applying a strict arithmetical approach, the appropriate starting point is 3 years and 4 months.

12.In view of the defendant's age and clear record, I adopt a starting point 3 years' imprisonment.  A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 2 years.   Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 2 years' imprisonment.