HKSAR v. Cho Shing Hin

HCCC 12/2020

[2020] HKCFI 2430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 12 OF 2020

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 54.5 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 53.4 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. You have been permissive to this court for sentence.

The fact which he had admitted to was that on the 11 March last year, he was seen shortly before 11 pm on the street walking in Mongkok Road. He was acting suspiciously so he was intercepted by the police. And upon a search of his person under his left armpit were found the drugs which is the subject matter of the charge.

Under caution, he admitted that he was delivering the drugs for money. And is the usual story in the subsequent video-recorded interview, he came to have met an unknown person who offered to pay him $2,000 to carry the drugs from one place to another. The total estimated street value of the drug is just under HK$30,000.

The defendant is age 27 and he was aged 25 at the time of the offence. In mitigation, it is pointed that that the defendant studied up to Form 3 and after he left school worked at various jobs. He became unemployed in November 2018 until the time of his arrest in March 2019. He is the only child of parents who are hard working and both parents are employed. One as a construction worker and the other as a security guard. Unfortunately, the defendant rather than choose to be hard working like his parents decided to succumb to the temptation of easy money by committing this offence. And this is despite the fact that he had been in prison in 2010 for the similar offence of trafficking. That did not deter him from repeating an offence in 2012 for possession of dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre.

In mitigation, Mr Cheung had submitted a letter from a Madam Chow who had met the defendant in 2017 when the defendant did some volunteer work at a day care centre. It is mentioned in her letter that the defendant was a very energetic volunteer and in fact we see a gold prize from the Social Welfare Department.

Obviously the defendant knows how to serve society in a good way, however he allows himself to fall back into crime. The only mitigation I can see in this circumstances is that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

As Mr Cheung correctly pointed out the tariff for trafficking in methamphetamine hydrochloride was laid down in the HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun in 2014. The court of appeal recommended that for trafficking in between 10 to 70 grammes, the sentence after trial should be between 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment. In this case, the defendant was trafficking in 53.4 grammes and therefore, the starting point should be in the region of between 9½ to 10 years. I will adopt the starting point of 9½ years and giving the defendant the full one-third discount. He is send to prison for 6 years and 4 months.