HKSAR v. Leung Siu Kam

DCCC969/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 969 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.  The particulars of the offence are that on 10 July 2009, outside the ground floor of On Pak House, which is in Tsing Yi in the New Territories, he unlawfully trafficked in 8.81 grammes of pure cocaine.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant state that on 10 July 2009, at 1724, two police officers were patrolling in the Cheung On Estate in Tsing Yi.  They spotted the defendant in the vicinity and concluded that he was acting suspiciously.  When the defendant saw the police officers, he apparently walked away in the opposite direction.  He was intercepted by the police officers.

3.The defendant was carrying a rucksack, and inside the rucksack, they found the drugs, the subject of the charge.  Initially, when he was cautioned about this matter, he said that he bought the drugs the day before in Mongkok for $15,000 and they were for his own consumption.  I understand he now accepts that he was in possession for the purpose of trafficking in the drugs.

4.The defendant is 27 years of age and has a clear record.  He was educated to Form 5 standard.  Until relatively recently, he lived with his family.  He has a father, who is a cook, aged 63, and his mother is a housewife, aged 57.  He has two elder brothers and a younger brother, aged 25.  The defendant was employed for some time as a warehouseman, and apparently he was financially quite well off when he was in that employment, but he lost that job in 2007 because of the economic recession.

5.I am told that in 2007, he had a girlfriend and he moved out to live with his girlfriend.  At that time, he was earning reasonable money and was able to purchase a car, and he and his girlfriend lived relatively well.  Unfortunately, when he lost his employment, he found himself in financial difficulties, and it was those problems which led to the commission of this offence.  It was for financial benefit.

6.In mitigation, two letters have been placed before the court, one from the defendant and the other from his parents.  The defendant indicates in his letter that he is deeply remorseful for this offence and he is very conscious of the distress that he has brought to his family.  I am told that he has always had a good relationship with his family and has made regular contributions to the family finances.  The letter from the defendant’s mother confirms that they are a supporting family and will support the defendant when he is discharged from prison.

7.The offence to which the defendant has entered the guilty plea is a serious offence as the defendant obviously knows.  For trafficking in up to 10 grammes of cocaine, the sentence is in the range of 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.  That is the appropriate sentence notwithstanding the clear record of the offender.

8.The only mitigation really in this case is the guilty plea, which has been entered by the defendant.  I am advised that not only has he pleaded guilty today but he previously told both the court and the prosecution that he intended to enter that plea today so that no witnesses have been required to attend court for today’s proceedings.

9.Now, the narcotic content of the cocaine is 8.81 grammes.  I have taken into account all the circumstances of the case, and I have decided that the appropriate starting point is a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant will be given credit for his guilty plea.  So, therefore, the sentence will be reduced by one-third.  The defendant will, therefore, serve a sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment.