HKSAR v. Yip Hiu Tung
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 91/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases
|
DCCC 91/2018 [2018] HKDC 1562 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 91 OF 2018 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Charge and facts 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug. 2.On 31 October 2017 at around 1620 hours, police officers, including WPC16775 ("PW1"), patrolled at Temple Street near Man Ming Lane in Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, and saw the Defendant and her boyfriend Ah Chung acting furtively. PWI then intercepted her for a search. 3.In the zipped bag attached to the right strap of her backpack were found:
4.PW1 arrested her for possession of dangerous drugs and seized the dangerous drugs as exhibits. Under caution, she said that the dangerous drugs are for her self-consumption, it was cheaper to buy them at a time, and they were not related to his boyfriend. 5.In a subsequent video-recorded interview, she said under caution, among others, that:
6.The total estimated street value of the dangerous drugs was $7,334. 7.At the material time, she possessed the dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Mitigation 8.The Defendant is 21 years old. She has a clear record. 9.She is the single child of a family consisting of parents who either did not take much care of her or simply punished her. Her father is a cook. Her mother had another daughter from her previous marriage. She always suspected him of having extra-marital affairs. She also indulged in gambling. She eventually deserted the family 7 years ago after borrowing money from loan sharks. The father has a passable but not close relationship with the Defendant. Four years ago, he moved out to live with his girlfriend, who did not want him to contact the Defendant or family members. He bent to her want and left the Defendant to fend for herself. Unable to pay the rent, the Defendant moved to live with her grandparents in a small hut. In sequence, she was a saleslady in a fashion boutique for about a year. She was a courier of daily necessities from Hong Kong to China for 1 ½ years. She was a part-time waitress in a Japanese restaurant for a year. From February 2017 until remanded in custody, she had been a construction site worker. 10.It was in February 2017 while working at the Disneyland construction site that some colleagues initiated her into various dangerous drugs. This led to the present offence. She found herself suffering from hallucination. She consulted a psychiatry specialist in December 2017. The diagnosis was Depressive Disorder. Her parents’ way of child-rearing had a lot to contribute to it. After treatment by Castle Peak Hospital, she completely got rid of the vice habit. 11.She had been doing quite well in school until her family relationship became disharmonious. She lost interest in studies. After the first term in F. 4, she quit. While a construction site worker, she attended various one- or two-day courses on vocational skills for the construction site from February 2017 to March 2018. She obtained the following certificates:
12.Her counsel informs me that her last income was $1,000 per day as a construction site worker with some skills. 13.Her boyfriend actually disapproved of her vice habit and she had kept him in the dark. She intended to share some of the dangerous drugs with her friends for free. 14.I am asked to consider Training Centre and Rehabilitation Centre as sentencing options. The reports come back recommending Rehabilitation Centre. 15.Her family and relatives have come to court today to show their support. Sentencing considerations 16.It is 2 – 5 years’ imprisonment for trafficking below 10 g of cocaine (Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342; R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370). 17.In HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121, the Court of Appeal suggests a discount between 10 – 25% of the basic starting point, to such extent as warranted by the circumstances of the case, where all or part of the drugs seized were for self-consumption. Sentencing the Defendant 18.In every drug trafficking case, there is always a strong call for general deterrence. Her claim of self-use is plausible as the potential profit margin, for buying at $7,000 a batch of dangerous drug estimated by the police to be worth $7,334, would be nominal. Besides, her income could support her vice habit. Her claim of sharing with friends for free is also plausible. 19.I come to consider her personal circumstances. Before me is a 21-year-old girl who had to fight all her way on the path to survive. Her parents were selfish and irresponsible. Without much right guidance, she had had had little concept of law-abiding and the harmful effect of dangerous drugs. However, she had never stopped working, even manual jobs, to earn a living and seized the opportunities to learn more skills. After the arrest, she had made successful efforts to disconnect from the vice habit. 20.If a jail term is to be considered, a starting point of 2 years 6 months may be appropriate. Taking 25% off for a case of major self-use and then one-third for the plea of guilty, the sentence may be 15 months. If she behaves well in jail, she will get full remission. The detention will end up less than 1 year, not much longer than the rehabilitation centre programme but without the 3-year recall. 21.I am convinced that a jail term will do more harm to her than good. She should not be put in jail if there is another option conducive to her continual reformation and betterment. I consider the rehabilitation centre the best option for herself and the community. I so order.
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case