HKSAR v. Chau Hon Shu and Another

DCCC 501/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 501 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charges

1.D1 pleads guilty to dangerous driving (1^st Charge), driving whilst disqualified (2^nd Charge), using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (3^rd Charge), and trafficking in a dangerous drug (4^th Charge).  D2 pleads guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug (4^th Charge).  The 4^th Charge is a joint charge against both D1 and D2. 

Facts

2.On 3rd January 2017, police officers patrolled around Nest Carpark at No. 13-15 Hoi Kwong Street, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong. At around 2:45 p.m., Police officers saw D1 getting into a vehicle bearing registration number UM 8950 inside Nest Carpark. This car belonged to a person known as TING. DPC 8150 approached the car, and D1 drove the car towards the officer. The officer told D1 to stop, and had to move away in the end avoid the car. UM 8950 left the carpark, and Police officers gave chase.

3.One of the officers SGT LAM drove a Police vehicle SY 4265 to follow UM 8950 and observed that there were three occasions where UM 8950 cut double white lines while driving within a housing estate Taikoo Shing (the car camera of SY 4265 captured the same) namely:

(i) along Taikoo Wan Road (near a junction that led to the Eastern Corridor) where D1 cut from the left to the white line with dotted white line on the right;

(ii) immediately afterwards, also along Taikoo Wan Road (towards Cityplaza), D1 cut across a double white line from the left;

(iii) then, further ahead, along Taikoo Wan Road near Tai Fung Avenue, D1 cut across double white line from the right to the left. D1 also drove UM 8950 through the red light in Taikoo Shing near Marigold Mansion.

4.In short, UM 8950 weaved through traffic and accelerated several times.

5.In addition to what SGT LAM observed, the car-camera of SY 4265 captured the movement of UM 8950 as follows:

(i) When the Police vehicle SY 4265 tried to intercept UM 8950, UM 8950 was blocked by the Police vehicle with a stationary medium goods vehicle further ahead. UM 8950 drove away and escaped;

(ii) UM 8950 disobeyed a "Stop" sign that required vehicles to stop and give way to traffic on the right and accelerated through it. An incoming vehicle on the right had to stop to give way to UM 8950 instead;

(iii) UM 8950 accelerated and cut through a double white line. There was a taxi in front. UM 8950 came into a close distance with the taxi as it overtook the taxi;

(iv) UM 8950 accelerated and crossed a double white line. In the process, UM 8950 blocked a car on its left that was in the course of turning right.

6.The pursuit lasted for around 3 minutes. At around 2:48 p.m., UM 8950 arrived at Wilson Parking Ground Floor, Tai Wing Avenue, Taikoo Shing, Hong Kong crashed through the stop-bar at the main entrance and stopped inside the carpark. Police vehicle SY 4265 soon arrived. This was captured by CCTV of the carpark and the Police vehicle's car camera.

7.D1 fled. Later, D1 stumbled outside Tung Hoi Mansion, Taikoo Shing and was subdued by SGT LAM. Soon, more officers came The police searched UM 8950 and found a plastic bag containing 19 packets of cocaine inside the glove compartment at the front passenger seat of the Car. There was a total of 3.37 grammes of a solid containing 3.03 grammes of cocaine.  The estimated street value was about $3,059.

8.He admitted to the police that he trafficked in dangerous drugs with D2 and another person called CHENG. 

9.At about 4:12 pm, D2 and CHENG arrived at Nest Carpark.  Police officers intercepted them for a search and arrest. 

10.Records of the Transport Department indicated that D1 was disqualified from driving between 31 October 2016 and 30 October 2017. 

11.Zurich Insurance Group (Hong Kong) confirmed that their third party insurance policy for the Car did not cover any person driving without a valid driving license.  

12.In the subsequent investigation D1 admitted having bought 23 packets of cocaine for $3,500 from someone the night before; D2 collected the drug and put them into the glove compartment of the car; each packet would be sold for $400; D2 assisted by CHENG would receive the payment and distribute the drug for a reward of $25 per packet; D2 had sold 2 packets earlier on the same day; he contravened the traffic signs and crashed the stop-bar of the carpark when being chased by the Police vehicle. 

13.In the subsequent investigation, D2 admitted distributing the cocaine for D1 for a reward of $25 per packet; he had proceeds of $800 with him to be handed over to D1. 

Mitigation

14.D1 is 21 years of age, of secondary education level.  He did a one-year culinary course at Hong Kong Culinary Academy.  He then worked in his father’s paper-box business.  His mother is a clerk.   He is their only child.  On the date of the offence, he was using the car to traffic in drug as well as to give his girl-friend a lift for her part-time job. 

15.On 9 April 2013, he was sentenced to Rehabilitation Centre for drug trafficking.  He was released on 13 November 2013.  Given the 1-year supervision period, which would end on 12 November 2014, it can be reckoned that it took him 2 years and 2 months to commit the same offence again.    His reoffending is an aggravating factor but much watered down by the passage of time. 

16.On 31 October 2016, he was fined $2,000 and disqualified for 12 months for permitting someone to use his vehicle without third party insurance.  This is an aggravating factor as he was committing the offence on account of his own driving here in the present case. 

17.D2 is 25 years of age.  On 25 January 2017, he was sentenced to 4 months concurrently for 3 counts of drug trafficking (of herbal cannabis, as I am informed by his counsel Mr. MA).  He was on police bail for that case when he committed the present offence of drug trafficking.  This is an aggravating factor. 

Sentencing D1 and D2

18.The 1^st Charge is dangerous driving.  It involved a course of dangerous driving for 3 minutes, which posed serious risk to people and property along the route.  D1 was driving whilst disqualified and did not have a third party insurance cover.  I take a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment.  I reduce it to 6 months because of the timely plea of guilty.  I disqualify D1 for 6 months and order him to complete the driving improvement course before retrieving his driving licence. 

19.The 2^nd Charge is driving whilst disqualified.  I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment.  I reduce it to 4 months because of his timely plea of guilty.  I disqualify him for 18 months, which by statute shall be consecutive to the period under the 1^st Charge. 

20.The 3^rd Charge is driving without a third party insurance cover.  I take a starting point of 6 months.  I reduce it to 4 months because of his timely plea of guilty.  I disqualify him for 18 months, to be concurrent with the 6 months under the 1^st Charge but consecutive to the 18 months under the 2^nd Charge. 

21.The 4^th Charge is drug trafficking.  He was the boss of D2 and CHENG and had the use of the car.  I consider a starting point of 3 years 3 months for his retail drug trafficking.  For his repeat offending, I increase it by 3 months for more deterrence.  From the actual starting point of 42 months, I reduce his sentence to 28 months because of his timely plea of guilty. 

22.The total length of disqualification is therefore 36 months. 

23.By totality I make the following adjustment to his terms of imprisonment:

(1) 4^th Charge, 28 months to be served;

(2) 1^st Charge, 4 months of which shall be consecutive to other charges;

(3) 2^nd Charge, sentence concurrent with other charges;

(4) 3^rd Charge, sentence concurrent with other charges.

24.His overall sentence is 32 months. 

25.D2 collected drug and money for D1 for a reward.  I consider a starting point of 26 months. For his committing the present offence while on police bail for the same offence, I take an actual starting point of 27 months.  I reduce it to 18 months because of his timely plea of guilty.