HKSAR v. Chan Pak Chung

DCCC 418/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 418 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.In this case, the defendant, Chan Pak-chung, is charged with one count of “Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug”, contrary to section 4(1) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, Laws of Hong Kong.

2.He is convicted upon his plea and admission of facts.

Facts

3.At about 11 am on 6 March 2015, the defendant was intercepted and searched by the police officers patrolling in Shek Kip Mei Estate.  The police found on the defendant’s person cash in the sum of HK$11,821.50, RMB50, two mobile phones and a large resealable plastic bag.  Inside the bag there were 28 pellets weighing a total of 14.10 grammes containing 8.64 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

4.Under caution, the defendant admitted that on the morning of the same day he had been asked by an acquaintance to deliver the dangerous drugs to an address in Shek Kip Mei Estate for a reward of $500, and that he was also a drug addict himself.

Background

5.The defendant is aged 41, with 40 previous convictions involving seven charges related to dangerous drugs.  For the drug‑related offences he had been fined, sentenced to DATC, and gaoled.  He could not claim credit for his youth and/or good record.

6.According to the defendant’s lawyer, the defendant is married and now lives with his wife and an autistic elder brother.  He had been frank and remorseful, as reflected in his admission and plea at the first available opportunity.

Sentencing Considerations

7.Offences of this kind have been considered by the Court of Appeal.  There is a very clear sentencing guideline set out in the judgment of Lau Tak Ming CACC 230/1989.

8.The present case involves 8.64 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, which falls within the “up to 10 grammes” band, warranting 2 to 5 years of imprisonment.

9.I see no reason to depart from the norm.  For the ease of calculation I will adopt 52 months as a starting point.

Mitigation

10.There is no suggestion that part of the dangerous drugs were for his own self-consumption.  In fact, the Admitted Facts indicated otherwise.  The defendant was given the whole bag containing 28 pellets to be delivered to an address in Shek Kip Mei.  I will not therefore have to consider the principles laid down in Chow Chung Sang CACC 135/2011 and make a reduction from the starting point.

11.As has been pointed out by the defence, the main and, in my view the only effective, mitigating factor is his plea of guilty.  For this, he is entitled to the customary one‑third discount, and his sentence, after rounding down to the nearest month, is reduced to 34 months.

Others

12.The defendant, through his lawyer told this court that at the time the defendant accepted the job of delivering the dangerous drugs he was having marital problems and other financial pressure. This is obviously not a valid mitigating factor.

13.Having considered his family circumstances as put forward by his lawyer, I do not find any other valid factor to justify further leniency.

14.The defendant is therefore sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 34 months.