HKSAR v. Tse Pui Kam

DCCC 963/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 963 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs.  In the early morning on 30 July 2013, he was a single passenger in a taxi on the way to Kam Tin Post Office which stopped at a police road block in Kam Tin, N.T.  The police constable saw him drop 2 bags onto the floor of the taxi.  The 2 bags contained smaller bags which contained cocaine.  A search of his person also yielded a small bag of cocaine.  All 3 bags together contained 12.05 g of a solid containing 10.31 g of cocaine.  After arrest and caution, he said he was instructed to deliver the cocaine to a man at Kam Tin Post Office.

2.The estimated street value of the drug was $10,122.00. 

Personal background and mitigation

3.He is now 23 years of age, F. 5 education level.  He had no drug trafficking record.  He lived with his wife and infant son together with his parents in Tin Shui Wai, N.T.  He worked as a delivery worker before arrest.  He claimed to be a drug addict.  He convicted the present offence to raise money for drugs. 

4.His solicitor in mitigation submits that of the seized bulk, 39 smaller bags which contained cocaine of 8.95 g in total were for the purpose of trafficking whereas he would use the rest for self-consumption.  The prosecution objects to this submission.  I accept this submission on the practical basis that the difference in the quantity for trafficking, hence the impact on the sentence, is insignificant. 

Sentencing guidelines

5.In R v. Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR, the Court of Appeal sets out the tariff sentences for trafficking in heroin.  In Attorney General v. Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, a case of trafficking in cocaine, Silke VP in the Court of Appeal observed that the psychotropic harm of cocaine can be equated with that of heroin for the purpose of sentencing.  The tariff sentences of R v. Lau Tak-ming shall be applicable.  A trafficker of below 10 g shall face 2 – 5 years’ imprisonment, and of 10 – 50 g shall face 5 – 8 years’ imprisonment.   

Sentencing this defendant

6.On the basis that 8.95 g was for trafficking and the rest for his own consumption, I take a starting point of 4 years and 9 months.  One-third off, his sentence is 3 years and 2 months.  He has no other mitigating factors.