HKSAR v. So Chun Wa

DCCC 1104/2017

[2018] HKDC 658

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1104 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant in this case was stopped by the police on his way to deliver drugs.  He pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking.  The drugs involved are 9.5 grammes of a solid containing 7.98 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 15 grammes powder containing 12.41 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

2.About 6 o’clock in the morning on the day of offence, 26 October 2017, the defendant left his home, a public housing unit on the 13th floor of Chu Fung House, Fung Tak Estate, Diamond Hill, with the drugs in his hand to deliver it to a man who was waiting in a park downstairs.

3.As soon as he got to the lift lobby on the floor where he lived, he was stopped by police officers, who seized the drugs, which were put in six plastic resealable bags, each containing small pelleted wrappings, 120 altogether - 40 of them are solid drugs while 80 others in powder form.  He told the officer at the time of his arrest that he was taking the heroin to someone in the park downstairs on behalf of another for a reward of $600.

4.Also found on him are two mobile phones, together with a total of $2,100 cash, 600 of which defendant said was the reward.

5.In a subsequent interview with the police, he further elaborated on his trafficking story by saying that a friend called “Ah Wai”, who paid him $600 the night before, to deliver the drugs to another man in the park near where he lived the following morning.  He took the drugs home first and set out in the next morning to do it, but before he could do so he was stopped by the police.

6.The street value of the drugs seized is estimated to be approximately $18,000.

7.The defendant, aged 42, has amassed 20 prior convictions over the past 20-odd years, 12 of which are drug related.  The majority are simple possession.  Only one of them is trafficking, for which he was given a 16-month prison term in 2003.

8.He is married with a 7-year-old daughter and currently separated from his wife.  He used to be a delivery worker, earning about 8,000 a month on average, but he was unemployed at the time of offence and had to rely on government allowances in the sum of $2,000 a month.

9.Defence counsel said that, although the defendant had been a drug addict for over 14 years, he did not make up any story of part-consumption, like some other defendant did in similar cases, in order to obtain further reduction in sentence.

10.But he nevertheless made a plea that the court should take a lower starting point because of the defendant’s full and frank disclosure to the police that he delivered the drugs to another.  In other words, he made up no false story about part-consumption that part of the drugs was for his own consumption.

11.Of course, frank admission from the defendant is something worthy of praise, but I think the effect of which, in the instant case, would have been reflected in the discount given to a plea of guilty.

12.The sentencing guideline that applies to the present case is 5 to 8 years for trafficking between 10 to 50 grammes of heroin.  For the amount the defendant admitted trafficking, i.e. 20.39 grammes, I take 5 years and 9 months as starting point.

13.The only substantial mitigation in this case is the defendant’s timely guilty plea.  For that, he would be given a full one-third discount.

14.After giving the appropriate discount, the starting point is reduced to 46 months.

15.There being no reason for any further reduction in sentence, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment.