HKSAR v. Hui Chi Keung
|
DCCC 375/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 375 OF 2014 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 12.18 grammes of cocaine. He is convicted accordingly. 2.At about 2:28 am on 31 December 2013, two police officers saw the defendant acting furtively on Portland Street. They intercepted the defendant and escorted the defendant to an alleyway at Portland Street. 3.Upon body search, the police found a transparent resealable plastic bag (Exhibit P1) from the defendant’s underpants. Inside the said plastic bag were six resealable plastic bags containing dangerous drugs. 4.The defendant remained silent under verbal caution. 5.The police also found a car key with remote locking device (Exhibit P8) from the defendant. The defendant claimed that his car was parked in the New Territories, but when the police officer pressed the device, the alarm lights of a private car with the registered number EF448, which was parked just five metres from the scene, lit up. 6.A car search located a purple plastic bag (Exhibit P2) inside the storage compartment of the driver’s door. This purple plastic bag was found to contain one resealable plastic bag marked with a star shape and the number 80 (Exhibit P3). The latter plastic bag was found to contain:
7.The defendant remained silent when being cautioned for trafficking in a dangerous drug. 8.The defendant was also found to have cash $8,390 and two mobile phones. 9.Chemical analysis revealed that:
10.The total quantity of the dangerous drugs so seized is 18.54 grammes of a solid containing 12.18 grammes of cocaine. 11.The impression of the defendant’s right middle finger was located on the front offside door of the car. 12.The police expert estimated that the street value of the drugs so seized amounted to $23,530. Mitigation 13.The defendant is now aged 37 and married. The defendant worked as a decoration contractor, not as a transportation worker as stated in the antecedents statement. He earned about $20,000 per month. It was said the defendant became a drug addict two to three weeks prior to his arrest. 14.The defendant got a free supply of drugs and also a reward of $2,000 for the drugs. The defendant also claimed that those six packs of cocaine (P1, with the total narcotic content of 0.84 grammes) found on him were for his own consumption. 15.The defendant’s last criminal record was back in 1997, some 17 years ago. The defendant had never been put into gaol. 16.The defendant’s mother and the defendant’s wife submitted their mitigation letters to this court pleading for leniency. Sentence 17.The defendant had a total of five convictions since 1997. He had one similar conviction in 1997 but was only fined $3,000. His last conviction related to 9 violence offences, for which the defendant was fined $2,000. 18.So far the defendant was lucky in that he was never put into gaol by the sentencing court previously. Apparently the defendant does not appreciate the courts’ leniency. The defendant committed another similar offence this time. 19.I accept that those six packs found on the defendant were for his own consumption. 20.The defendant tried to lie to the police relating to the car he had parked, but eventually another 80 packs of cocaine were discovered. From the packaging it is apparent that the drugs were ready to be sold on the retail market. 21.The police estimated that the street value of the drugs amounts to $23,530. At the time of his arrest, the defendant also had cash $8,300-odd and two phones. 22.In her mitigation letter, the defendant’s mother, who had colon cancer back in 2004, said that she is still suffering from various kinds of disease. She maintained the defendant is a kind-hearted person. He is also the sole breadwinner of the family. The defendant’s wife has no doubt, as stated in her mitigation letter, that the defendant looks after the family well and is a pillar of the whole family. There are various problems in the family, and she could not imagine what will happen to the family without the defendant. Both of them ask this court to sentence the defendant as leniently as possible. 23.No doubt the most important mitigating factor for the defendant is his guilty plea. This is a wise move, as the evidence against the defendant is strong. Had the defendant been convicted after trial, he certainly has to face even lengthier sentence. 24.The defendant has one similar, but I will not take this into account for the present purpose. 25.The sentencing guideline for trafficking in cocaine is clear. In normal circumstances, trafficking in 10 grammes to 50 grammes of cocaine will attract a sentence of 5 to 8 years. 26.The total quantity of cocaine so seized is 12.18 grammes. I will deduct the quantity of Exhibit P1, namely 0.84 grammes, from this grand total, making it 11.34 grammes. 27.Given the mitigation put forward by defence counsel, I will treat the defendant with leniency. I will adopt 5 years as the starting point. The guilty plea will entitle the defendant to have one-third discount in sentence, which will make it 40 months. 28.With the strong support from the defendant’s mother and his wife, I hope the defendant will take this chance to turn a new leaf and keep his promise to be a law-abiding citizen, a caring husband and a filial son. 29.As such, I exercise my discretion and further reduce 2 months from the sentence. 30.Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to 38 months’ imprisonment.
|