HKSAR v. Yau Kin Wai

DCCC821/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 821 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge

1.The defendant faced and pleaded guilty to an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug under section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

Facts

2.The facts of the case can be summarised as follows:- On 4 February 2010, the police officers were patrolling in the area of Sun Chui Estate, Shatin, in a police vehicle. At about 3.45am they saw a light goods vehicle number MA6411 (“the vehicle”) which was originally parked outside the entrance of Sun Chui Estate but began to move away once the police vehicle approached.

3.The police suspected the vehicle contained contraband and signalled the vehicle to pull over and stop. The defendant was the only person in the vehicle. Upon search of the vehicle, 23 plastic bags which contained 5.42 grammes of a solid containing 4.19 grammes of cocaine, and 5 plastic bags containing small transparent plastic bags were found.

4.Under caution, the defendant admitted that the dangerous drug found in the vehicle were cocaine and they belonged to him. He was delivering the drugs for an unknown person, Ah Shing. He helped delivering the dangerous drug as he was indebted to a credit card company. For each plastic bag of the dangerous drug he delivered, he would get a reward of $100. At the time of the arrest, the defendant had about $1,500 cash with him. The police estimated that the street value of the dangerous drugs involved would be about $7,200.

Defendant’s background and mitigation

5.The defendant was a youngster aged 27 who has no criminal record in the past. Ever since he completed his Form 5 education he started to work and made contribution steadily to his family. He has been working as a delivery worker for the same company for the past 8 years, earning $8,500 per month.

6.When his mother had ceased working in 2005 due to her health problem, the defendant shouldered up most of the responsibilities in supporting the family. Furthermore, he had to bear the medical expenditure of his mother. His income was clearly insufficient to pay for his own and his mother’s living. As a result, he started to borrow money from the finance company and had incurred a debt of $80,000. Out of financial predicament and greed, the defendant was regrettably tempted to seek quick money and started to deliver dangerous drugs for a person named Ah Shing, whom he hardly knew. For every packet of dangerous drug he delivered he would get a reward of $100. Consequently, he was arrested for the present offence.

7.The defendant’s mother, who is present in court, has written to this court and mitigated for her son. The defendant’s employer, Mr Lam, is also in court today to give his support. He confirmed that the company will continue to employ the defendant upon release and Mr Lam has asked for leniency in sentencing the defendant. A letter from the company speaks highly of the defendant in his performance, attitude and his personal character.

8.This court has no doubt that the defendant was a hard‑working and responsible worker who was popular amongst his colleagues and with the employer. Nevertheless, the offence which the defendant has committed, was a very serious and a harmful one. Sentencing tariffs for trafficking in cocaine have been duly set out by the Court of Appeal in R v Lau Tak Ming & Another, CACC230/1989, and also A‑G v Pedro Nel Rojas, CAAR15/1993. It was held that for up to 10 grammes of narcotic, an imprisonment of 2 to 5 years would be warranted.

9.The narcotic content of this case was 4.19 grammes of cocaine. Having considered all the circumstances, including the background of the case and of the defendant, mitigation advanced by his lawyer, his previous good character and the sentencing tariff, this court would adopt 3 years’ imprisonment as a starting point. Such sentence would be reduced by one-third for the plea to one of 2 years.

10.The sentence to be served should be 20 months’ imprisonment.