HKSAR v. Ngai Tai Ming

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 807/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 24 June 2019.

1. The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in 16.50 grammes of a solid containing 15.00 grammes of cocaine, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance [1] .

Cites 4 cases

Case No.DCCC 807/2018[2019] HKDC 678
Court
District Court
Date24 Jun 2019
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 807/2018

[2019] HKDC 678

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 807 OF 2018

____________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  NGAI TAI MING  

____________

Before: HH Judge Dufton
Date: 24 June 2019
Present: Mr Stephen M.T. Ma, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Albert Cheung instructed by Simon Si & Co on 15 April and 21 May 2019
Mr Simon Si of Simon Si & Co on 24 June 2019 assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in 16.50 grammes of a solid containing 15.00 grammes of cocaine, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance[1].

2.In summary at around 8:30 p.m. on 13 June 2018 the police intercepted the defendant when he approached private car ME 5557, which was parked inside the car park at On Yam Shopping Centre in Kwai Chung. 

3.ME 5557 was registered in the defendant’s name.

4.Upon search of the car the police found a plastic bag in a concealed compartment underneath the tray in front of the arm rest by the driver’s seat.  The plastic bag contained seven plastic bags each containing ten smaller plastic bags inside which was the cocaine[2].

5.Under caution the defendant admitted the cocaine belonged to him and that he intended to sell the cocaine to others.   

6.The street value of the cocaine was $21,037.

7.Inside the bag carried by the defendant the police found three mobile phones; HK$56,218; RMB 470 and a key to a different car. 

8.The defendant does not agree that all the money was found in his bag and says part of the money was found in the car.  The disagreement over where the money was found does not affect the sentence to be imposed[3].

Mitigation

9.In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Cheung together with the mitigation letters written by the defendant, his brother and his former employer.   

10.I take into account that the defendant has no previous drug convictions. 

Guidelines

11.The courts have equated for sentencing purposes cocaine with heroin[4].  In R v Lau Tak Ming the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for trafficking in heroin[5].  The court said that the sentence upon conviction after trial where the quantity of narcotic is between 10 and 50 grammes falls within the range of 5-8 years’ imprisonment. 

12.Mr Cheung refers the court to the Reasons for Sentence in HKSAR v Ngo Kin Cheung where the judge adopted a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment for 13 grammes of cocaine[6] and in HKSAR v Chiu Shun Hung where the same judge also adopted a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment for 16.73 grammes of cocaine[7]

13.On a purely arithmetical approach a starting point of just over 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate for trafficking in 15.00 grammes of cocaine.  Taking into account the defendant has no previous drug convictions I adopt a slightly lower starting point of 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

14.Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

  (D. J. DUFTON)
  District Judge


[1] Cap 134.

[2] See photographs 6, 7 & 9-16.  The photographs were submitted during the application for forfeiture. 

[3] The disagreement is relevant to the prosecution application for forfeiture of the money, which application is adjourned pending submission by the OCBC Wing Hang Bank Limited.

[4] See Attorney General v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69.

[5] [1990] 2 HKLR 370.

[6] DCCC 299/2016.

[7] DCCC 951/2016.

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 807/2018