HKSAR v. Chong Ka Man

DCCC284/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 284 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.Chong Ka-man, the defendant, pleaded guilty before me to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.The offence took place on 7 January 2009, outside Room 4, 3rd Floor, No. 263, Ki Lung Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon.

3.The defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 26.26 grammes of a mixture containing 21.98 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. 

4.On the day in question, PC58220, PW1, and other police officers mounted an anti-dangerous drugs operation in Sham Shui Po and they laid ambush outside the flat in question.

5.At about 12.13 pm on the same day, PW1 spotted that the defendant went out from the flat.  PW1 intercepted the defendant outside the flat.  A body search was conducted on the defendant.  Upon search, PW1 found 79 packets containing suspected dangerous drugs, P1, in the waist bag which was being carried by the defendant. 

6.PW1 arrested the defendant.  Under caution, the defendant said, “The white powder is for my self-consumption only”. 

7.At 5.44 pm on the same day PW1 and his colleague conducted a video-recorded interview with the defendant.  The defendant reiterated that “the things” seized by the police were for her own consumption but she refused to answer further questions.

8.P1 was subsequently examined by the Government Chemist who certified that P1 contained 26.26 grammes of a mixture containing 21.98 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. 

9.Before me today the defendant admitted she possessed P1 for the purpose of trafficking. 

10.In 2004 the defendant was convicted of three drugs- related offences and she was sent to DATC.  In 2008 the defendant was convicted of two charges of theft and again she was sentenced to DATC. 

11.The antecedent statement of the defendant reveals that she is now aged 29.  She received Form Three education in Hong Kong.  She was unemployed at the material time.  She has been a drug addict since 18 years’ old. 

12.Ms Liang in mitigation submits that the defendant is still young as she is only 29 years’ old.  She has never been sentenced to prison.  She has been a drug addict since 18 years’ old.  For her previous court experiences, she had been sentenced to DATC.  The present case concerns one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs and the amount was 21.98 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.   

13.Ms Liang submits that at the material time the defendant was living and was under the influence of her boyfriend, who was also arrested by the police. 

14.Ms Liang tells me that the defendant is in fact married but she lived as a single lady with her boyfriend.  She was married when she was only 17.  At that time, she had a baby with her then boyfriend.  The husband of the defendant was also very young and he has unable to take care of the newborn baby and the defendant.  They had to live with the husband’s family.  As their relationship deteriorated, they parted and the defendant resided with her parents.  The husband of the defendant failed to take care of the defendant and the baby.  The defendant was deeply depressed and she became a drug addict.

15.Ms Liang tells me that the defendant has little working skill.  The daughter of the defendant is now aged 13 and she has been brought up with the help of the defendant’s parents. 

16.At the time of the offence the defendant was under the influence of her new boyfriend.  In fact, the defendant was arrested outside the flat of the boyfriend.  Their relationship dated back to the time when the defendant was last released from the DATC in July 2008.  All along the new boyfriend treated the defendant very well and he gave $3,000 to the defendant as pocket money per month. 

17.With the financial support of the boyfriend, the defendant did not have to go out to work and she could take care of her daughter. 

18.As the defendant had only received Form Three education, in the past she could only work as a waitress and a shop assistant.  At the time of her arrest she was unemployed. 

19.Ms Liang submits that the defendant committed the offence in question as she was instructed by her boyfriend to carry the drugs.  Ms Liang submits that given the quantity of the heroin in question, in light of the tariff as set down by Lau Tak Ming, the sentence should range between 5 to 8 years.

20.Ms Liang asked me to bear in mind the young age of the defendant.  At the time of her arrest the defendant was still under the recall supervision of the DATC. 

21.She pleaded guilty to the charge and that merits a one-third reduction.  The defendant is extremely remorseful for what she had done and she had in fact written a letter and the contents of the letter written by the defendant has been related to the court through Ms Liang in mitigation.

22.The defendant has now broken all links with her boyfriend.  She is now determined to turn a new leaf upon release from prison.  She has a plan to reform herself and her sister-in-law has in fact offered to train the defendant as a beautician and the defendant will no longer rely on her boyfriend in the future. 

23.Ms Liang asked me to adopt a starting point of 5 years in the present case. 

24.I have considered the nature of the charge, the facts as admitted by the defendant and the tariff as set down in the case of Lau Tak Ming.  I have also considered the background of the defendant and all the matters urged on her behalf by counsel. 

25.Given the quality of the drugs involved, i.e., 21.98 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, and applying the tariff of Lau Tak Ming to the present case, in my view, a starting point of 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.

26.The defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for her guilty plea.  It is said that the defendant was under the influence of her boyfriend, but the defendant is an adult person, she should have known the consequences of engaging in drug trafficking activities.  Having been a drug addict since 17 years old, the defendant should be aware of the harmful effect of heroin on others. 

27.Ms Liang urges me to consider the young age of the defendant.  The fact remains, however, that the defendant is now 29 years old, definitely she does not fall into the category of extreme youth and, as such, the age of the defendant cannot count as a mitigating factor in her favour. 

28.Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant, there is no other mitigating factor which can enable this court to further reduce the sentence.

29.For the offence in question, I sentence the defendant to 46 months’ imprisonment.