HKSAR v. Tang Tin Lok, Felica (also known as Tang Tin Lok)
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 685/2019 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 6 May 2020.
1. The defendant is convicted on his own plea and agreement to amended Summary of Facts to trafficking in a dangerous drug.
Cites 2 cases
|
DCCC 685/2019 [2020] HKDC 375 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 685 OF 2019 ----------------------------
----------------------------
-------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE -------------------------------------- 1.The defendant is convicted on his own plea and agreement to amended Summary of Facts to trafficking in a dangerous drug. Facts 2.At around 11 pm on 1 June 2019, police officers spotted the defendant near Block 1, Villa Esplanada, No 8 Nga Ying Chau Street. He was then intercepted. 3.Upon search, one transparent resealable plastic bag containing 22.2 grammes of a solid containing 15.4 grammes of cocaine was found at the waistband of the defendant’s underpants. 4.The defendant was then arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug and under caution, he admitted that he had intended to repackage the cocaine for sale. 5.The defendant also had two mobile phones and cash of $480 on him at the time, and later upon search of his home, an electronic scale and a packet of empty transparent resealable plastic bags were found on the table inside his bedroom. 6.The estimated street value of the drugs seized was around $38,051. Criminal Record 7.The defendant has two previous convictions, being theft and criminal intimidation in the year 2015 for which he was sent to detention centre. He has since been recalled upon release and was later released again in around year 2018. Mitigation 8.The defendant was born in Hong Kong. He is now aged 20. He is single. 9.At the time of arrest, he was living with his friends and a younger sister. 10.He received education up to Form 1 level. It was said that once he started his schooling in secondary school, he was influenced by dubious peers. His parents were concerned and they were very strict on him in discipline. The relationship between the defendant and his parents turned sour when his parents took the initiative to contact a social welfare officer and sent the defendant to the juveniles’ home. The defendant was 13 at the time. He was extremely upset and thought that his parents had given up on him. 11.Since then, the defendant engaged in a carefree life and worse, he was lured by his friends to take drugs to ease the unhappiness in his life. As he was unable to pay for the drugs, he followed the advice of his friends and started selling drugs to gain extra income. 12.Defence counsel submitted that the defendant is simple‑minded and was influenced by his friend. He underestimated the legal consequence of the offence and has foolishly committed the present offence. 13.After the arrest, the defendant was incarcerated and his parents visited him every week. 14.It was said that the defendant had a chance to talk to each other and share their feelings, the defendant is now able to look at things from another perspective and he now no longer blames his parents. He took the initiative to reflect himself and is extremely remorseful for what he has done. He is very determined to turn a new leaf. 15.It was submitted that during the remand, the defendant has written letters to his parents. It is said that the defendant is now remorseful and cares very much about his family. The mitigation letters from the defendant as well as his parents were lodged to this court. These letters appear to show the defendant is determined to start afresh after he is released from prison. He said in his letter that he would try to earn a living by being a chef and would also cut his ties with his dubious peers on release from prison. 16.The defendant’s counsel urges this court to deal with the defendant leniently and to adopt a lower starting point in sentence. Discussion 17.The maximum sentence on conviction on indictment for this offence is a fine of 5 million and imprisonment for life. 18.For trafficking of cocaine, following the authority of Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342 which adopts the guideline in R v Lau Tak Ming & Ors, CACC 230/1989, the appropriate sentencing starting point for trafficking 10 to 50 grammes of cocaine is 5 to 8 years of imprisonment. In considering the quantity of drugs involved in this case, the appropriate sentencing starting point is 5 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. 19.Trafficking in dangerous drug is a very serious offence and it is said in numerous cases that personal background of the defendant is seldom a valid mitigating factor. 20.When arrested, the defendant had two mobile phones on him. He also had over $30,000 worth of cocaine as well as cash of $480. 21.Moreover, inside the bedroom in his home, the electronic scale and packet of empty transparent resealable bags were also found. The defendant also admitted under caution that he intended to repackage the drugs seized. It is also the defence case that none of the drugs seized were for his own consumption. 22.The role of the defendant in this drug-trafficking operation is very substantial. He is much more than just a courier. But for his relatively young age, this court will have no hesitation to enhance substantially the sentencing starting point. Consideration 23.Considering the mitigation done on his behalf, including the mitigation letters from the parents as well as from the defendant, this court finds that the most valid mitigating factor is that of the defendant’s own guilty plea of which he is entitled to a full one-third sentencing discount. 24.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 43 months and 10 days’ imprisonment. 25.This is not the first time the defendant was incarcerated. He was sent to detention centre two times (including the recall), yet he has clearly failed to learn his lesson nor did he understand the good intention of his parents. 26.This court has reservation that the defendant is really determined to start afresh but in view of his relatively young age and this court was told that his parents and younger sister are all very supportive of the defendant in rehabilitation, they are all here in court today supporting the defendant, for this reason this court is willing to give 3 months and 10 days’ discount in sentencing. 27.Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment for the offence.
|