HKSAR v. Chiu Tsz Chun

DCCC 547/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 547 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty on the last occasion to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.Particulars are that on 15 March 2013, outside Mei Lok House, Mei Tin Estate, Shatin, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 30.30 grammes of a solid containing 24.98 grammes of cocaine and 1.11 grammes of a powder containing 0.91 grammes of cocaine.  The total of pure cocaine is 25.89 grammes.

3.The facts of the case are very straightforward. On the evening of 15 March, police officers were on anti-dangerous-drug operation in the area of Mei Tin Estate.  At about 10 o’clock, the police saw the defendant wandering around and looking around.  The police intercepted him.  Then followed a stop and search.  A police officer found in the defendant’s jacket pocket dangerous drugs.  The defendant was then cautioned, and under caution, he told the police officer that the drugs were cocaine.  He said he had earlier purchased the drugs in Mongkok for $10,000.

4.What was also agreed in the Summary of Facts was that the street value of this quantity of cocaine was actually nearly $32,000.

5.The best mitigation put forward on behalf of the defendant is his plea of guilty.  He was only 18 at the time of the offence, and the defendant had a clear record.  After hearing mitigation, despite the quantity of cocaine, I did adjourn for a training centre report.  I have such a report today but I will not repeat its details.  The report deems the defendant a drug dependent and does not find him suitable for detention in a training centre.

6.The report does elaborate on the defendant’s background.  The defendant’s father, sadly, died in 2010 from cancer.  The defendant lives with his mother and two older siblings.  It was explained to me that since the defendant’s father’s death, his mother has been working two jobs a day.  Defence counsel told the court on the last occasion that the defendant was grateful for his mother’s hard work but wanted to help her and accepted this job to deliver cocaine for a fee of $2,000.

7.The report also sets out the defendant’s history at school.  From the very beginning, he was not a good student.  He had poor grades and poor performance grades from start to finish.  He left school in 2008.  He did try his hand at some jobs such as an electrician’s apprentice and a plumbing worker, but it seems that he spent most of his time hanging around with undesirable peers in undesirable locations meaning such a lifestyle would inevitably lead to problems.  He was introduced to dangerous drugs by friends, and eventually he accepted a monetary reward for delivering drugs.

8.His mother is very disappointed.  She feels that she is partly to blame because he did not receive sufficient supervision when he was younger.  However, it seems the defendant himself admits that he did not listen to his mother’s advice in any event, and he is sorry for disappointing her.  Most importantly, the mother continues to support him now despite this offence, and she asks the court to treat him as leniently as possible.

9.The training centre report does not find the defendant suitable for detention in a detention centre.  A term of imprisonment is inevitable.  The defendant’s role is one of a drug courier.  However, this role does not make the offence any less serious.  He may only be a cog in the wheel where trafficking dangerous drugs is concerned but even those who play such a role need to be deterred.

10.It has been said time and time again that extreme youth is not a factor that attracts leniency.  Whilst the defendant serves a term of imprisonment, he should take the time to reflect on how his bad peers and lifestyle led him to this predicament.  If he does not stay away from this lifestyle and those peers, he will only find himself in trouble again and again.  He should take the opportunity to learn a trade whilst in detention under the supervision of the Correctional Services.

11.Where trafficking drugs are concerned, there are guidelines the court should follow.  And where trafficking cocaine is concerned, the guidelines are the same as those set out for trafficking heroin in the authority of R v Lau Tak Ming [1992] HKLR 370.  Where between 10 to 50 grammes of cocaine is trafficked, that would attract a starting point of between 5 to 8 years.  Here, 25.89 grammes of cocaine would, mathematically speaking, attract a starting point of 6 years. 

12.What I consider relevant in coming to an appropriate starting point would be these factors.  It is the defendant’s plea, obvious remorse, previous clear record, his age, background and his continued family support despite this offence.

13.Defendant, please stand up.  Having considered those factors, accordingly, I will take a starting point of 5 years and 3 months.  You, Defendant, have pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of one-third.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to 3 years and 6 months for this offence.