HKSAR v. Tsoi King Cheong

DCCC1064/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1064 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant was convicted upon his guilty plea of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In sentencing I take into account the whole circumstances of the case including its nature and facts, in particular the nature and quantity of the dangerous drugs concerned, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf by learned defence counsel.

2.The facts of the case are simple.  The defendant was stopped at the corridor of a public housing estate.  Upon search, one plastic bag containing crystalline solid was found in the right front pocket of his jeans.  The item was later confirmed to be containing 6.38 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.17 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Under caution the defendant admitted that he was acting as a courier upon the request by someone he knew to deliver the ‘Ice’ to others for a reward of $300.  He said he had not received the reward yet.

3.The defendant is 18 years of age.  He is single.  He had attended Form 3 education.  Having left school he had worked as a waiter for two years earning stable monthly income of about $7,500.  He gave his mother about $2,000 a month.  Then he worked part-time and earned about $300 a day.  Since he needed to work long hours, he started to abuse drugs in order to relieve stress.  He had been taking ‘Ice’ for three years.  His parents separated when he was very young.  His father is now serving a prison term.  His mother who had worked as a cleaner could not work due to an injury. The defendant wanted to earn more to support his mother.  In the circumstances, he was lured to earn easy money.  Being ignorant of the serious consequence, he committed the present offence.  I was told that the defendant is now remorseful and was prepared to turn over a new leaf. 

4.It is sad to see once again a young person being manipulated and exploited to engage in this very serious offence. 

5.I am asked to consider a Probation report before consideration of sentence.  I do not see the need to use public resources for this purpose.  This is an offence far more serious than one a Probation Order can reflect.  Despite his young age, the defendant is not a first-time offender.  In 2004 a Probation Order had been imposed on him for two assault offences.  In 2005, for another assault case he was sentenced to 200 hours of Community Service Order. 

6.In the present case the dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as ‘Ice’.  The quantity concerned was 6.17 grammes.  In the case of  AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125, the Court of Appeal indicated that in sentencing after trial where the quantity was up to 10 grammes the sentence should range from 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment. 

7.In all the circumstances, I am of the view that an imprisonment term is warranted.  Despite the defendant is only 18 years of age, the court has consistently held that for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, unless it is a case of extreme youth, youth generally is not a reason to reduce the sentence. 

8.Deterrence is an important factor in sentencing for this nature of offence and a court should not only give regard to the rehabilitation needs of the defendant. 

9.If any precedents are required, I am going to cite R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, AG v Suen Yuen Ming [1989] 2 HKLR 403 and R v Yiu Kwong Shui CACC377/1995.  The defendant is not a person of extreme youth. 

10.The court was informed that the defendant is drug-dependant.  I, however, do not consider it necessary to consider sending him to DATC for treatment.  In the light of the length of the imprisonment term I am going to impose, there is sufficient facility in the prison to assist the defendant to get rid of the drug habit. 

11.Having considered the whole circumstances including mitigation, I do not consider there exists sufficient reasons not to follow the tariff.  In Lau Tak Ming, the Court of Appeal said that within the suggested bands the court should take into account the following factors: the profit which may reasonably be expected; the number of packets; the type of mixture containing the narcotic; the degree of involvement of the offender, and his previous history of narcotic offences. 

12.Notwithstanding the record of the defendant, this is the first time he was convicted of any dangerous drug-related offence. In all the circumstances I consider a starting point of 3½ years appropriate. 

13.The defendant pleaded guilty, he is entitled to a one-third discount.  I am prepared to give the defendant a further discount of 4 months for his young age and as a token to encourage him to rehabilitate. I hope the defendant will realise that this is really his last chance and if he does not make a good endeavour to turn over a new leaf his life will be ruined. 

14.Based on the matters aforesaid, I sentence the defendant to 24 months’ imprisonment.