HKSAR v. Siu Choi

DCCC 448/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 448 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one offence of possession of a dangerous drug. Both offences arise out of an incident where the defendant was seen on 4 December 2014 wandering in the street. He was intercepted outside the premises in Hung Fook Street in Hunghom in Kowloon and eventually returned to the premises where he resided which is Room B on the 1st floor of No. 28.

2.Inside the premises, police found various drugs.  They are particularised in the Summary of Facts which the defendant has agreed as follows: two transparent resealable bags containing 2.88 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.88 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.  Together with them was found an electronic scale and battery, and a further cigarette box which contained 13 further transparent bags which themselves contained 10.4 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.    

3.The defendant was asked about the drugs.  I said, “I am in need of money recently.  I took the ‘Ice’ to sell.”

4.Totally, 13.28 grammes of crystalline solid containing 13.28 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride were found by police. This would have a street value of $5,710.

5.The defendant was interviewed subsequently and gave further details of his use of that drug.  He said that on 2 December 2014, he spent $1,500 to buy around 14 grammes of “Ice” which were packed in 15 packets.  He had intended to sell the “Ice” to someone in a video game centre but had failed to find any purchaser before the police arrested him and seized the “Ice”. 

6.The facts agreed by the defendant show that he possessed 8.28 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 8.28 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, and by his pleas, it is accepted by the defendant that he possessed that quantity for the purpose of trafficking and the further quantity of 5 grammes for his own personal possession.

7.The defendant has agreed his antecedents.  He is aged 54.  He had worked as a cleaner in the past but was in receipt of CSSA at the time of his arrest.  He was most recently sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment in 2011 for possession of a dangerous drug.  He also said that he was a drug addict and had consumed “Ice” for some 10 years.

8.The defendant’s criminal record shows that he is a long-term consumer of drugs.  In 1987 and 1988, he was sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre.  Since then, he has a number of convictions for possession of a dangerous drug.  He also has two convictions for trafficking in a dangerous drug, one, the first being in 1998 where he received a sentence of 18 months and the second being in 2009 where he received a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.    

9.As far as mitigation is concerned, the defendant has presented a letter to the court where he shows his remorse and his determination to improve himself and turn over a new leaf.  He said that he has an aged mother and he needs to provide help and support to her.  The defendant also prays in aid his plea of guilty.  He accepts that a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable for the charges to which he has pleaded guilty.  He says he is determined to finally rid himself of his addiction 

10.In respect of the charges, I shall take the following approach.  Charge 1 is the charge for the defendant’s trafficking in a dangerous drug.  There is a well-settled guideline for sentence based primarily on the quantity of drug that is trafficked.  In this particular charge, Charge 1, the quantity is 8.28 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.  This falls within the guideline sentence of up to 10 grammes where sentences range between 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment.  The figure of 8.28 of course puts it towards the higher part of that band of sentencing.

11.The calculation of a starting point is not entirely based on quantity but it is clearly an important and primary factor in enabling consistency of sentencing for this particular kind of charge. 

12.I consider that the starting point for sentence for this charge should be 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment which is 69 months’ imprisonment.  After deduction for the defendant’s plea of guilty which is a deduction of one-third, this leaves a sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment or 3 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.  

13.The 2nd charge involves the defendant’s possession of the same drug.  In respect of sentences for the possession of a dangerous drug, sentences can range between 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment with an enhancement of sentence to reflect any latent risk of redistribution.  In this case, there must be some risk of redistribution given the quantity of 5 grammes.   

14.I find that the appropriate starting point for this particular charge is one of 15 months’ imprisonment.  This will be enhanced by 3 months to reflect the latent risk, giving a figure of 18 months’ imprisonment.  After the defendant’s plea of guilty, the sentence therefore on Charge 2 is one of 12 months’ imprisonment.

15.So the sentences are as follows: on the 1st charge, 46 months’ imprisonment; on the 2nd charge, 12 months’ imprisonment.

16.The drugs were found at the same time and represent one cache of the drug.  In respect of that and in respect of the overall totality, I will order that the sentences are to run concurrently.  So the overall total sentence will be one of 46 months’ imprisonment.