HKSAR v. Heung Chun Ho

HCCC 436/2017

[2018] HKCFI 966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 436 OF 2017

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was conmmitted in the Court of First Instance for sentence. In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

Facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

The defendant was stopped when he was entering the building at which he was living. Inside the backpack he was carrying a packet containing cocaine was found. He admitted under caution that he was delivering “coke” for a reward.

With a key found on him, officers entered his flat. Inside a wardrobe, a small quantity of cocaine contained inside 23 plastic bags was found. Also found were an electronic scale, a plastic tray, a pair of scissors, a metal bowl, a straw, more than 160 transparent resealable plastic bags. He said this batch of drugs was for his own consumption and that the other items were for packing cocaine.

In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Ms Chu, stressed that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and he is now in full remorse. She urged the court to note that the defendant was only a delivery man and no elaborate planning was involved in the case.

She also asked the court to take into account that the defendant had a clear record before. She told the court that the parents of the defendant divorced when he was 10 years old. Since then, he has no contact with his father and was brought up by his mother alone. She has been working as a sales lady. She is in court to support the defendant.

After the defendant finished education, he started to work at the age of 16. He committed the offence as he was in heavy debt as a result of gambling. In the severe financial difficulty, he was lured to earn quick money and agreed to be involved in the offence by promised reward of $20,000.

The defence produced two letters, respectively written by the principal and a teacher of the school the defendant has studied in. They said that the defendant had been a good student and he excelled in football. He had led the school football team to many achievements and his impact is still felt. They pleaded leniency on his behalf.

The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was cocaine. In AG v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69, it was held the guidelines for sentence in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 are applicable to cases of trafficking in cocaine.

Having regard to the circumstances in the case, I am of the view that in sentencing, I should take into account the total quantity of the dangerous drug found which will be 1,0005.19 grammes in solid form, containing 826.77 grammes of cocaine.

Lau Tak Ming only provided a tariff for cases involving narcotic content up to 600 grammes. In HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437, the Court of Appeal set out further guidelines for cases involving larger quantity. It was held that for cases involving narcotic content of 600 to 1,200 grammes, an imprisonment term of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment should be considered.

In all the circumstances of the present case, I do not consider there are any reasons to justify departure from the tariff. Noting that this is the first offence committed by the defendant, I adopt the following starting point:

Charge 1, 21 years; Charge 2, 2 years. The defendant pleaded guilty, he is entitled to a one-third discount.

Having considered the whole circumstances, in my judgment, this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to in this case.

For the reasons I have mentioned, I sentence you to the following imprisonment terms: Charge 1, 14 years; Charge 2, 16 months. Having regard to totality, I order the two sentences run concurrently. You are to serve a total sentence of 14 years for the two charges.