HKSAR v. Cheung Sung Yu

DCCC964/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 964 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.  The particulars of the offence are that on 3 July 2009 outside Hing Yip House in Sai Yee Street in Mong Kok, he unlawfully trafficked in 6.63 grammes of cocaine.

2. The facts admitted by the defendant state that in the early hours of the morning of 3 July 2009, a road block was set up by police in Mong Kok to conduct random checks.  At 3.37 am the officers intercepted a taxi outside Hing Yip House in Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok.  The defendant who was a passenger of the taxi appeared to be nervous and the officers requested him to alight from the taxi and conducted a search on him.

3. Inside the right pocket of his trousers, the officers recovered a packet of chewing gum.  Inside the packet there were three transparent plastic bags which were found to contain the drugs, the subject of the charge, and the defendant was arrested.  He claimed that it was for his own consumption.

4. The defendant was taken to the police station and under caution he told the police that he bought the cocaine from a person called Ah Lung in a karaoke bar for $4,500.  He told the police that he had been unemployed for three months and used to work as an apprentice in a restaurant.  Prior to his arrest, he had intended to go to pubs in Prat Avenue in Tsim Sha Tsui but decided to go home in the end.

5. The street value of the drugs is in the region of $8,298. 

6. In mitigation, I was told that the defendant has a clear record.  He is 16 years of age and he had worked as a kitchen apprentice.  At the time of his arrest he was a drug addict and he started in 2008 by consuming ketamine and then he went on to take cocaine.  Although the cocaine some of it was for his own use, part of it would be sold.  His rate of consumption varied. 

7. A letter was produced from the defendant’s father states that the defendant is remorseful, his family support him and the father asks for leniency. 

8. I adjourned the case on the previous occasion so that I could have the advantage of a training centre report.  The report from the Correctional Services Department indicates that because of the defendant’s drug dependency he is unsuitable for detention in a training centre.

9. The report is not a favourable report.  It states that whilst the defendant’s  academic and behavioural performance in primary school was fair, his performance soon deteriorated in secondary school.  He became acquainted with triad related peers and indulged in seeking enjoyment outside.  He dropped out of school without completing Form 2 in January 2007.  When he started work he did so unsteadily.

10. And the report confirms what I was told in mitigation that he first started to take ketamine and then cannabis and Ecstasy.  The eventually started inhaling cocaine in February 2009.  In March 2009 he started to sell drugs to make easy money.  I am told that during the bail period although he stopped selling drugs, he kept on taking dangerous drugs until January of this year. 

11. The defendant has a clear record and is 16 years of age.  However, as the Court of Appeal has said, youth is not an excuse for this sort of conduct.  The starting point for trafficking in this quantity of drugs is about 3½ years.  I take into account that some of the drugs were for his own consumption.  I therefore propose to take a starting point of 3 years in this case and reduce it by one-third to reflect the guilty plea.  The defendant will therefore go to prison for 2 years.