HKSAR v. Sze Cheung Chun

DCCC 438/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 438 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to and is now convicted of 3 charges, namely:-

(1)   Trafficking dangerous drugs:

9.86 grammes of a mixture containing 8.39 grammes of heroin hydrochloride;

(2)   Possession of a dangerous drugs:-

2.tablets containing 0.02 grammes of midazolam

(3)   Possession of a dangerous drugs:-

(a) 0.09 grammes of a powder containing heroin hydrochloride and midazolam;

(b) One tablets containing 0.01 grammes of midazolam.

2. Facts:-

Charge 3	31/1/2011	Stopped and searched and found the dangerous drugs in his bag. Under caution: bought the drugs for $150 and it was for his own consumption.
Charge 2	10/2/2011	Stopped and searched and found the dangerous drugs in his overcoat’s pocket. Under caution: for his own consumption.
Charge 1	18/2/2011	Defendant was stopped and searched and found 60 tablets of suspected dangerous drugs wrapped in plastic sheets in his trouser pockets. Under caution, sold the drugs for an unknown male to make a small profit of $10 each. The street value is $7,710.

Record

3.15 previous convictions items, 2 convictions related to charge 2 and 3, they were in 1992 and 1998.  Other convictions were mainly relating to copyright works and possession/publishing of obscene articles.

Mitigations

4.The Defendant is now 41 years old.  He is a casual worker and earns about $5,000 per month.  His wife suffers from injuries on her arm and therefore could not work.  He also has a son aged 18 and is still a student.  The Defendant was under very serious financial pressure.

5.Mr. Mui for the Defendant submitted to this Court that the present case can be distinguished from the case of Fok Wah You HCMA 1000/2006, that there was no latent risk factor in charge 3 as the quantity involved was extremely small.  The Defendant does not have any previous record of trafficking.  His admission to the police was for his own consumption.  A starting point of 6 months would be appropriated.

Sentence

6.Having considered all the mitigation before me, and taking into  account of Lau Tak Ming, (1990) HKLR 370  that up to 10 grammes of narcotic: Charge 1’s sentence fall into the bracket of 2 to 5 years.  The quantity of charge 1 was 8.39 grammes, the appropriate sentence would be 4 years 3 months, because of his guilty plea.  I reduce to 34 months that is 2 years 10 months.  As to charge 2, the sentence is 3 months, reduce to 2 months, 1 month to run concurrently with charge 1.  As to charge 3, the sentence is 4½ months, reduce to 3 months, 1 month concurrent and 2 month consecutive to charge 1.

Order

7.Charge 1:  2 years 10 months

Charge 2:  2 months, 1 month to run concurrently to charge 1

Charge 3:  3 months, 2 months concurrent and 1 month consecutive to charge 1.

The total sentence is 3 years.