BabelCite

HKSAR v. Cheung Mau Hing

Case No.DCCC 837/2009
Court
District Court
Date04 Sep 2009
Judge—
Case Document
100%

DCCC837/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 837 OF 2009

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

  HKSAR  
  v.  
  Cheung Mau-Hing  

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

Before:

Deputy District Judge M. Chow

Date:

4 September 2009 at 10.48 am

Present:

Ms Bobby Cheung, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Yiu Kwai Hung, instructed by Messrs K.H. Yiu & Associated, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant

Offence:

Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs (販運危險藥物)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking of dangerous drugs, namely, 56.08 grammes of a mixture containing 38.63 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The facts of the case

2.On 4 June 2009 at about 3.15 pm, the police conducted an anti dangerous drugs operation. At about 3.35 pm the police found the defendant inside the Ever Profit Restaurant. Upon the defendant’s request they took the defendant to the rear lane outside the restaurant for a search and found the dangerous drug in question inside his front trousers pocket.

3.Under caution the defendant stated that he was asked to deliver the two packets of dangerous drugs for a reward of $5,000 as he was unemployed.

The defendant’s criminal record

4.The defendant has six previous convictions, four related to drug offences. In fact 3 out of 4 were simple possession of dangerous drugs.

Mitigation

5.The defendant is now 42. He divorced in 2005. He had two teenage children. On the day in question he went to visit his children and met a man who persuaded him to deliver the dangerous drugs for $5,000. As he was unemployed, he took the risk as a courier to earn quick money. He is now remorseful.

Sentence

6.In passing sentence, I bear in mind that the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and that the quantity of the drugs involved is 38.63 grammes of heroin. The fact that the defendant was unemployed and he was in dire straights can never be a mitigating factor to be considered.

7.The defendant is convicted of a very serious offence therefore a sentence of deterrence and punishment is necessary. In accordance with the guideline in Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR, 371, that it falls into the sentencing bracket of 5 to 8 years. I therefore adopt a starting point of 6½ years, reduced to 52 months to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea.

  M. Chow
Deputy District Judge