HKSAR v. Lin Chun Pat

DCCC 944/2018

[2019] HKDC 970

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 944 OF 2018

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in 16.88 grammes of a solid containing 14.54 grammes of cocaine, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance[1].

2.In summary on 29 May last year police officers were conducting an anti-narcotics operation in On Tat Estate in Sau Mau Ping.  At around 4:19 p.m. the police saw the defendant standing near the fire hose reels close to the lift lobby on the 18th floor of Chi Tat House.

3.When the defendant saw the police officers he dashed towards the windows and threw something out of the window.  The defendant was immediately intercepted and searched. 

4.The police found inside the right front pocket of the defendant’s pants a transparent re-sealable plastic bag containing forty transparent re-sealable plastic bags inside which was a total of 8.44 grammes of a solid containing 7.20 grammes of cocaine. 

5.Under caution the defendant admitted the cocaine belonged to him.   

6.The defendant was then taken to the 2nd floor podium. 

7.In the meantime, a police officer went to recover what the defendant had thrown out of the window.  On the 2nd floor podium the police found an open transparent re-sealable plastic bag containing thirty-eight smaller transparent re-sealable plastic bags.  A further two smaller transparent re-sealable plastic bags were found next to the open plastic bag. 

8.The forty smaller transparent re-sealable plastic bags contained a total of 8.44 grammes of a solid containing 7.34 grammes of cocaine. 

9.Under caution the defendant admitted throwing the dangerous drugs from the 18th floor.

10.The defendant was also found in possession of HKD 5,000, RMB 248 and a smart phone.

11.The street value of the cocaine was estimated to be around HKD 18,314.    

Mitigation

12.In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Ho, including that the defendant is married with a young daughter and is the sole breadwinner of the family[2].

13.Mr Ho informs the court that the defendant’s wife and father have attended court today to show their support for the defendant. 

14.I take into account that the defendant has no previous convictions for trafficking in drugs.  The defendant does however have convictions for possession of drugs in 2009 and 2010.  On both occasions the defendant was sentenced to DATC.

15.Mr Ho tells the court that after getting married in 2017 the defendant quit his drug addiction so that he could offer a better future for his family. Unfortunately, after conflicts with other family members the defendant relapsed and took drugs again in 2018[3].

16.I have read the mitigation letters written by the defendant and his wife which explain why the defendant relapsed into taking drugs and why he committed the present offence[4].

17.With the guidance of the pastoral staff from the church the defendant’s thinking and attitude has gradually changed.  The defendant expresses his remorse and says he is determined to be a good citizen, a good husband, a good father and filial son[5].   

18.I have also read the letters from Mr Cheng the Outreach social worker, Mr Liu a volunteer with the Christian Prison Pastoral Association and Pastor Lam, who speak of the changes they have seen in the defendant whilst he has been on remand and that they are willing to continue providing support and counselling to the defendant.

19.I have also read the letter written by Mr Lin Sai Kit, the defendant’s former employer and who has attended court today to support the defendant.  Mr Lin describes the defendant as hardworking and responsible and promises to help the defendant to join the work force again.  

Guidelines

20.The courts have equated for sentencing purposes cocaine with heroin[6].  In R v Lau Tak Ming the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for trafficking in heroin[7].  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. 

21.On a purely arithmetical approach a starting point of just over 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate for trafficking in 14.54 grammes of cocaine. 

22.Taking into account the defendant has no previous convictions for trafficking I adopt a slightly lower starting point of 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

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