HKSAR v. Chow Ue
|
DCCC 226/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 226 OF 2014 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two offences, one of trafficking in dangerous drugs, and the second one of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause. The defendant has admitted the facts of the case and I have convicted him of both offences accordingly. 2.The 1st charge arose out of a stop and search by the police on 6 September 2013 in the evening at about 2150 hours. The defendant was intercepted whilst walking in Sham Shui Po. He was wearing a shoulder bag. A search of the shoulder bag found five plastic bags containing a gramme of a solid that contained 0.79 grammes of cocaine and a second plastic bag containing 8.81 grammes of cocaine. There was a further pile of transparent resealable plastic bags and an electronic scale. 3.Under arrest and caution, the defendant said someone had asked him to deliver the substance. The defendant made subsequent admissions in a video-recorded interview. He admitted the drug found on him was cocaine. He admitted he had been rung up at about 3 o’clock that day to be asked to carry goods by a man called “Ah Kwan”. Earlier that evening at about 8 o’clock “Ah Kwan” had given the defendant the bag which he knew contained cocaine, the scale, and also some plastic bags. The defendant was on his way home, where he was to receive further instructions, and he was arrested outside his home. He was to be paid $500 for this exercise. 4.It is admitted the street value of the cocaine was estimated at $18,856.80 5.On the 2nd charge, the defendant was in fact remanded in custody on 7 September, the day after his arrest. He was granted bail on 9 November to attend his mother’s funeral, the case being adjourned to 20 November 2013. However, the defendant failed to surrender to custody on 20 November 2013, when a warrant was issued. The defendant was arrested on 20 February 2014, and has been in custody since then. 6.The defendant’s personal antecedents are agreed. He is a 27-year-old man. He has a previous conviction record. He has a spent conviction in 2005 for managing a vice establishment. On 6 November 2013, the defendant was sentenced in respect of two offences of possession of dangerous drug to 21 days’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years concurrently. The defendant has admitted that his conviction on the second offence puts him in breach of that suspended sentence. 7.As far as further antecedents are concerned, the defendant left school at Secondary 4 level at the age of 18. The defendant at the time of his arrest certainly had the habit of consuming cocaine. 8.In mitigation, the defendant acknowledges that the 1st offence is a serious offence. He had been living with his elder sister prior to his incarceration. He came from a broken family. His parents had separated when the defendant was aged about 13 or 14. His mother had become mentally ill at that time, and six or seven years previously his mother had gone to a mental hospital. She had been discharged, but it would appear that her mental illness was not completely recovered from, and she committed suicide, as is clear from the Brief Facts. It was after attending his mother’s funeral that the defendant did not return to custody as required. 9.The defendant is remorseful. He said he had been introduced to trafficking through his peers that he had met from consumption of drugs. The defendant asks for leniency. 10.On the 1st charge, the defendant is subject to an offence where there is a tariff for sentencing. As far as the drug itself is concerned, it is cocaine, the total being 9.60 grammes of the drug. Sentencing for trafficking in cocaine follows the guidelines for heroin set out in the case of Lau Tak Ming. The defendant is within the category of up to 10 grammes where a sentence of between 2 to 5 years is the recommended sentencing guideline. 11.As far as the 2nd offence is concerned, the maximum possible sentence for this court is one of 12 months’ imprisonment. 12.I will take the following starting points for sentence. On the 1st charge, as I say, the defendant is just within the 2 to 5 year guideline. The figure of 9.60 grammes is below the 10 grammes which is the top of the guideline. Having regard to that fact and the fact that this is the defendant’s first offence of trafficking, I shall take a starting point for sentence of 4½ years’ imprisonment, which is 54 months. The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount to sentence. That reduces the figure to 36 months’ imprisonment. 13.On the second offence I will take a starting point at 6 months’ imprisonment. I will reduce that to 4 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty. 14.I will now consider the question of overall totality. I also bear in mind that there is a further 21 days’ imprisonment to be served for the breach of the suspended sentence. 15.I will order the sentences to run as follows. Having regard to overall totality, on the 2nd charge I will order that 2 months of the 2nd charge is to run consecutively to the 1st charge and 2 months concurrently. I will order that the sentences on the possession of dangerous drugs - that is, a total of 21 days - be served consecutively to those sentences. 16.This gives an overall total sentence of 38 months and 21 days’ imprisonment. That is the sentence of the court.
|