HKSAR v. Tam Sheung-yee Jason

DCCC 740/2019

[2020] HKDC 668

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 740 OF 2019

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug on 4 July last year, 2019, in Shatin in the New Territories. The narcotic content of the drug is 13.2 grammes of cocaine.

2.The facts are very straightforward.  The defendant was spotted by police climbing some railings in the early hours of the morning on 4 July 2019.  Police then proceeded to intercept him, finding a transparent resealable plastic bag with the drugs inside it in the right front pocket of his trousers.  Defendant said at the time he was employed and was delivering the dangerous drugs for money. 

3.He later gave some more details in a video recorded interview, admitting the drugs belonged to him, that they were dangerous drugs, that he was carrying out a job for a what he described as an unknown male met at a taxi stop in Tai Po, which was the delivery of the drugs.  He himself said he had used cocaine for about a year, and that is admitted in his antecedent statement as well.

4.The value of the drugs is estimated at about $33,796.

5.Defendant himself is still a relatively young man.  He is aged 26.  He was unemployed at the time of arrest but had been working before that in what is described as a technical job.  He has one conviction relating back to 2013, for which he was placed on probation.  It is not relevant to the sentencing of this offence.

6.He was living with his grandmother, who was not well, and he admitted he had been a drug consumer, which would appear to be the main reason why he would have taken upon himself this form of drug trafficking.

7.Now, the defendant has a number of letters of recommendation written for him.  He is clearly well thought of.  He comes from a good family.  He has taken an unfortunate turn in his life and acknowledges the offence and realises that he will be serving a substantial term of imprisonment.

8.Now, turning to the sentence that will be imposed, the sentencings of these cases is governed by guideline sentencing. The starting points for sentence and the tariffs for the drug of cocaine are based on the same tariffs as those of heroin, which is outlined in the Lau Tak Ming case.

9.The quantity of narcotic I am dealing with is 13.2 grammes, which means that it falls within the range of 10 to 50 grammes, which is the range of sentence between 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.  Miss So, for the defendant, made a brief calculation and, on a purely mathematical approach, the sentence for the defendant would lie somewhere between 5 years and 2 to 3 months’ imprisonment.

10.Counsel asked for leniency, said the defendant has pleaded guilty, has no similar convictions, and says the court is free to(?), when applying the guideline, to take as a starting point the lowest point on that guideline, to reflect the fact of the defendant’s clear record, his relative youth, and the fact that he has fallen into this offence by being involved in drugs as a consumer of the drugs himself.

11.I am persuaded in this case that the appropriate starting point for sentence, having regard to all these factors, would be at the lowest part of the guideline, which is a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment as a starting point.  That is still a very substantial sentence of imprisonment for this offence.

12.The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount, based on the mitigation put forward, which would mean that the initial starting point of 5 years (or 60 months) will be reduced to a sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment, and that is the sentence I will impose:  40 months’ imprisonment.