HKSAR v. Chau Chak Wa

DCCC 60/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 60 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug.  At a small hour of 3 November 2012, the police intercepted the defendant on Sheung Fung Street, Wong Tai Sin.  He dropped a bag and ran away.  PC 8146 caught him after a chase.  After arrest and caution, he admitted helping someone to bring the bag of cocaine from a park in Tsz Wan Shan to Tsim Sha Tsui for a reward of $500. 

2.The bag had 44 resealable plastic bags containing 10.43 g of a solid containing 8.55 g of cocaine in total.  The estimated retail value was over $8,500. 

Personal background and mitigation

3.He is 18 years of age, F. 3 education level.  He last worked as a transportation worker.  His parents are working.  He had 2 previous records for possession of a dangerous drug whereupon he was sentenced to the DATC concurrently.  In mitigation, his solicitor confirms from him that there is no call for any institutional placements. 

Sentencing considerations

Prison or other options

4.Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, provides:

(1) No court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless the court is of opinion that no other method of dealing with such person is appropriate; and for the purpose of determining whether any other method of dealing with any such person is appropriate the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to the character of such person and his physical and mental condition.

(1A) This section shall not apply to a person who has been convicted of any offence which is declared to be an excepted offence by Schedule 3.

5.The offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs is under section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, an excepted offence by Schedule 3.  It means the Court may consider prison on a par with other institutional placements.    

Sentencing guidelines

6.In Attorney General v. Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, a case of trafficking in cocaine, Silke VP observed that the psychotropic harm of cocaine was closely linked to that of heroin.  It would have the same sentence as R v. Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR, which set out the tariff sentences for trafficking in heroin as follows:

(1) Up to 10 grammes of heroin, 2 to 5 years;

(2) 10 to 50 grammes, 5 to 8 years;

(3) 50 to 200 grammes, 8 to 12 years;

(4) 200 to 400 grammes, 12 to 15 years;

(5) 400 to 600 grammes, 15 to 20 years;

(6) Over 600 grammes, 20 years upwards.

Sentencing this defendant

7.Institutional placements are not viable options as his previous sentences in the form of a DATC order have plain failed in their rehabilitative addresses.  Besides, he is not inclined to take any such options.  The sentencing guidelines will suggest 2 to 5 years.  Taking in account his role as a courier for reward, I take a starting point of 4 years.  One-third off for his plea of guilty, his sentence is 2 years and 8 months in the absence of other mitigating factors.