HKSAR v. Chu Ching Long and Another
|
DCCC 32/2025 [2026] HKDC 107 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 32 OF 2025 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.Both defendants are convicted on their own pleas and agreement to Amended Summary of Facts of a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 (Charge 1). 2.D1 is also convicted of a charge of driving without a valid driving licence, contrary to section 42(1) and (4) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374 (Charge 2), and a charge of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap 272 (Charge 3). Facts 3.At around 1210 hours on 18 June 2024, D1 was seen to be driving a private vehicle bearing registration number XC5579 (“the private vehicle”) in the vicinity of the Hotel Ease, Tsuen Wan, 15-19 Chun Pin Street, Kwai Chung, New Territories. There was no passenger on board. Later, at about 1600 hours of the same day, police officers noticed D1 was driving the private vehicle with D2 on board. D1 and D2 then got off the private vehicle and walked into Room 2103 of Hotel Ease (“the room”). 4.At around 1627 hours of the same day, D1 went out from the room and was intercepted by police on anti-narcotics operation. Upon search of D1, the card key of the room and the car key of the private vehicle were found on him. 5.Subsequently, police officers entered the room for search on the strength of a search warrant. D2 was found inside the room. The following items were seized from a clothes hanger and on the floor next to the said clothes hanger inside the room:
6.At about 1725 hours, D1 and D2 were arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs offence. Under caution, both of them said that “Those items belonged to us”. 7.In the video-recorded interview with D1 conducted on 19 June 2024, D1 stated under caution, inter alia, that:
8.In the video-recorded interview with D2 conducted on 19 June 2024, D2 stated under caution, inter alia, that:
9.E1 and E2 were later sent for Government Chemist examination and were confirmed to be 36.61 grammes of a solid containing 30.38 grammes of ketamine. 10.Street value of the same at the material time was HK$17,573. 11.D1 did not have a valid driving licence at the material time. 12.Ketamine is a dangerous drug under Part I, First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. Criminal Record 13.D1 has 1 drug-related offence conviction in 2023, for which he was sent to DATC. He also has 1 similar conviction to both the present Charges 2 and 3 on 31 October 2023, for which he was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months and disqualified from driving for 12 months. 14.D2 has 2 previous criminal records involving convictions of 2 charges, not similar. Mitigation – D1 15.D1 is now aged 20, single. He received education up to Form 5 level. 16.Defence counsel for D1 submitted that in relation to Charge 1, upon a strict mathematical application of the sentencing tariff in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, a net quantity of 30.38 grammes of ketamine would attract a sentence of starting point after trial at around 60 months’ imprisonment and that there is no sentencing tariff for Charge 2 and 3. 17.He conceded that D1 committed the offences while he was on suspended sentence. 18.Defence counsel asked this court to consider that D1 was raised in a broken family with virtually no care and guidance, his parents divorced when he was very young and neither parent cared for him. During his growing years, D1 was cared mostly by his grandparents and his only memory of his father was that he was always out for work. 19.He submitted that around 2019 to 2022, D1 was being sent to boarding school and, as his father had to make ends meet, D1 was seldom welcomed home even at weekends. D1 said all along only his grandfather had showed him care and affection. But due to old age and poverty, not much could be done by his grandfather. In the year 2022 to 2023, after finishing school, D1 was required to live on his own. This was particularly so when his grandfather passed away and he had nowhere to go. D1 got mixed up with peers of bad influences and ended up with his first transgression of the law in 2023. Upon release from DATC, D1 again found himself to have nowhere to go apart from mixing up with his previous peers of bad influences. 20.It was said that owing to his young age, humble education level, lack of family support and criminal conviction record, D1 foolishly thought that it would be impossible for him to have a proper job and therefore he committed the present offences. 21.Defence counsel submitted that in the 17 months of remand with discipline and routine life pattern, D1 benefited as he had a chance to reflect upon his own misdeeds and he is receptive to such form of rehabilitation. 22.It is submitted that D1 would prefer a term of imprisonment over other forms of sentence as he would like to learn proper skills to make a proper living upon his release. 23.It is submitted that D1 drove the private vehicle for fun only and that it was not related to the drug trafficking offence. No damage or injury was caused by the driving of this vehicle nor was there any complaint in the manner of driving by anyone. 24.It is said that on the basis of totality, D1 prays for a concurrent or substantially concurrent sentence for all 3 charges. 25.Defence counsel for D1 submitted that he has no submission on the aspect of disqualification, and that if this court is minded to activate the suspended sentence, he asked that the court to activate part of the prison term and to consider the totality principle. Mitigation – D2 26.D2 is now aged 20. He was 19 at the time of offence. His parents are both working and he has a 6-year-old younger brother. He received education up to Form 2 level. His parents said they both worked long hours and had limited capacity to supervise D2, who fell into bad company. After finishing school, D2 had low-skilled jobs in between and he was in bad company, leading to his transgression of the law in year 2021 and 2023, after which he was committed to DATC. 27.Defence counsel said D2 is now deeply remorseful and he understands that long-term imprisonment is unavoidable despite his guilty plea. 28.Defence counsel handed to court mitigation letters from D2 and his mother (signed by D2’s mother, father and brother). D2 has vowed not to re-offend. He vowed to work together with his father upon release from prison. D2 also regrets the harm caused to his family, particularly the loss of time with his parents and his younger brother. 29.Defence counsel submitted that D2 has demonstrated genuine effort to change and has actively participated in correctional programmes, obtaining certificates in first aid, hygiene management, and vocational skill courses such as barbering and computer training. D2 has expressed aspiration to become a chef after release. D2 concluded his letter with a solemn undertaking that he wishes to become a responsible son and a good role model to his younger brother. He has constructive plans for reintegration into society and a genuine commitment to rehabilitation. 30.It is said that D2 has now become more considerate of relatives and elders, and the family members would continue to support him and visit him, demonstrating enduring care and a strong rehabilitative network. 31.Defence counsel said D2’s role is limited to that of a courier, and there is no evidence to suggest he was involved in planning, financing, or profiting from a large-scale drug operation. The sum D2 received was modest and indicative of minimal participation. 32.She submitted that in D2’s case, justice may be tempered with compassion and may be best served by a sentence modest enough to permit rehabilitation yet sufficient to demonstrate the seriousness of the offence. Given the youth, limited role, early plea, genuine remorse, financial hardship and prospect of rehabilitation, defence counsel invited the court to consider a sentence towards the lower end of the range. 33.Defence counsel also referred this court to the case of HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and the case of Hii Siew Cheng. Discussion 34.Before sentencing, this court has carefully considered all that was advanced on behalf of the defendants, including the mitigation letters submitted and the cases cited. Charge 1 35.On conviction upon indictment of this charge, maximum sentence is a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for life. 36.Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence. In usual circumstances, it is well established that personal background and circumstances is not considered a valid mitigating factor. Likewise, committing the offence by reason of financial difficulty is not a valid mitigating factor. 37.The drug involved in this case is 30.38 grammes of ketamine. D1 38.From the agreed amended Summary of Facts and D1’s admission in the video-recorded interview, the drug in question was purchased by D1. He also bought the electronic scales for weighing the drug and together with the plastic bags, scissors, lighters and Octopus card all for repackaging of the drug. The room was rented by D1. It was D1 and D2’s plan to repackage the drug for onward selling to other people to make a profit. The room is a drug packaging center. 39.From what is before the court, D1 appears to be responsible, substantially if not whole, for the drug trafficking operation assisted by D2. 40.Considering the quantity of ketamine in question, the circumstances of the commission of the offence, and D1’s role and culpability in the charge, this court would consider appropriate sentencing starting point of 64 months’ imprisonment. But for the age of D1 and his unfortunate childhood, the court would adopt the sentencing point of 62 months’ imprisonment for D1. 41.The only valid mitigating factor is D1’s timely plea for which he is entitled to one-third sentencing discount. D1 is therefore sentenced to 41 months and 10 days’ imprisonment for Charge 1. D2 42.As for D2, on his admission in the video-recorded interview, he was paid by D1 in the repackaging of the drug in question, although he did admit that the drug in question belonged to himself and D1. His role in the offence was less than that of D1. 43.In the circumstances of this case, the appropriate sentencing starting point of Charge 1 for D2 would be 60 months’ imprisonment. 44.D2 is entitled to one-third sentencing discount by reason of his guilty plea, which is the most valid mitigating factor. D2 is therefore sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1. Charge 2 45.On the first conviction of this offence, a person is liable to a fine of $5,000 and to imprisonment for 3 months. 46.This is the second conviction of the same offence by D1. This court finds the appropriate sentencing starting point is 9 weeks’ imprisonment. 47.D1 has pleaded guilty and is entitled to full one-third sentencing discount. He is therefore sentenced to 6 weeks’ imprisonment for this charge. Charge 3 48.A person convicted of this offence is liable to a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment for 12 months. 49.This is the second conviction of the same offence by D1. The commission of this offence pose risk to other road users and properties around. The court finds that the appropriate sentencing starting point is 3 months’ imprisonment. 50.Again, D1 is afforded one-third sentencing discount by reason of his guilty plea and is therefore sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for this charge. 51.On conviction of this charge, the court shall, unless for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise, order the defendant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving license of a vehicle for such a period as the court may determine, being not less than 12 months nor more than 3 years from the date of conviction. 52.The court sees no special reason in this case not to impose the disqualification order and therefore the court now orders that D1 be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving license of any class for 3 years from the date of conviction. Totality – D1 53.Commission of Charges 2 and 3 is not part of the circumstances under which Charge 1 was committed. The nature of Charge 1 and Charges 2 and 3 are also entirely different. When sentencing D1 in respect of Charge 1, the court did not take into consideration of the commission of Charges 2 and 3. The commission of Charges 2 and 3 clearly adds the culpability of D1 in the present case. 54.Having regard to the total culpability of D1 in the whole incident, this court considers that the total sentence of 43 months and 10 days’ imprisonment just and appropriate to his culpability. Accordingly, the sentence of Charges 2 and 3 shall run totally concurrent with each other, but to run totally consecutive to the sentence of Charge 1. Suspended sentence – D1 55.D1 was put on suspended sentence for similar charges to Charges 2 and 3 (KCCC 2863/2023). He committed the present Charges 2 and 3 while the suspended sentence was still alive. 56.This court sees no reason not to activate the suspended sentence and therefore the suspended sentence of 4 weeks’ imprisonment would be activated in whole. The 4 weeks’ imprisonment for both of these charges in the previous case would run concurrent with each other, and consecutive to the sentence in the present case. Summary 57.D1 is sentenced to 43 months and 10 days’ imprisonment in this case. The suspended sentence of 4 weeks’ imprisonment under KCCC 2863/2023 is activated and to run consecutive to the sentence in the present case. 58.D2 is sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment in this case.
|
Cases cited in this judgment