HKSAR v. SIU CHUN KIT NATHAN

HCCC 190/2019

[2019] HKCFI 3155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 190 OF 2019

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

The defendant, Mr Siu Chun-kit Nathan, pleaded guilty during the committal proceedings to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. The particulars of offence are that the defendant, on the 27th day of May 2018, outside Flat B, 13th Floor, Cheung Yick Industrial Building, No 12 On Yip Street, Chai Wan in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 30.7 grammes of a solid containing 25.5 grammes of cocaine.

He is committed to this court for sentence.

Facts Admitted

On 27 May 2018 at about 1210 hours, when police officers were about to execute a search warrant at Room B, 13/F, Cheung Yick Industrial Building, 12 On Yip Street, Chai Wan, the defendant came out from the unit. He tried to close the door of the unit on seeing the police officers. A struggle ensued between the police officers and the defendant but the defendant was subdued.

Inside the trouser pocket of the defendant, the police officers found 2 plastic bags containing a total weight of 30.7 grammes of a solid containing 25.5 grammes of cocaine. Inside the paper bag the defendant was holding at that time, the police officers found cash $1 million.

Under arrest and caution, the defendant admitted that the 2 packets of cocaine were for his own consumption and had been given to him free of charge by a male named Dawson who lived at the unit.

In a video-recorded interview subsequently conducted, the defendant admitted he had come to know Dawson about 3 to 4 years ago. He visited Dawson at the unit at the material time, and Dawson, knowing him to be a cocaine addict, gave him the 2 packets of cocaine free of charge and entrusted the $1 million cash to him for safe custody, saying that the unit had been burgled before.

The estimated value of the cocaine in question was $33,310.

Criminal Record

The defendant has a clear criminal record.

Mitigation

The defendant is aged 27 years and was brought up in a decent well-off family. He is currently unemployed and had worked as an Uber driver and had also run a business with a friend dealing in items such as magnetic stickers. The solicitor representing the defendant describes the defendant as a victim of over-cared parents who give enormous support and financial assistance to the defendant. According to the solicitor, the parents and elder sister of the defendant, together with a number of relatives, are in court to support the defendant.

The solicitor tells the court that the defendant first experienced dangerous drugs when he attended KGV School. He was given some hashish by a classmate. The defendant later started using ecstasy and ketamine. After leaving KGV School in 2010, the defendant stopped using dangerous drug for 2 to 3 years but picked up cannabis during his last year of study in the City University of Hong Kong. He went to the USA after graduation, where he was introduced to cocaine. And because of the sense of importance the drug gave to him, he became hooked. He started the business with his friend after coming back to Hong Kong from the USA.

He came to know Dawson in 2014 and he bought cocaine from Dawson at almost half of the market price. Dawson also occasionally gave him cocaine free of charge. The defendant sold some of the cocaine to his friends who did not know Dawson. The defendant consumed about 1 gramme of cocaine a day which was worth about $500 to $550.

On the day in question, he picked up the 2 bags of cocaine from Dawson which could last him for 2 to 3 weeks. Dawson also entrusted $1 million cash to him for safe custody due to the poor security of the unit in which Dawson lived.

The solicitor tells the court that the defendant is determined not to touch dangerous drug again. He submits to court 16 mitigation letters written by the parents, relatives, friends and former teachers of the defendant. They all express good opinion of the defendant and plead for the leniency of the court. In one of the letters which is written by the younger brother of the defendant’s father who runs a motor vehicle company, it is stated that the defendant would be employed by the company upon his release from prison.

The solicitor points out that part of the dangerous drug was for the own consumption of the defendant and asks court to exercise its discretion to give the defendant discount in sentence, citing in support the authority of HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817. He also submits the urine test result of the defendant provided by the Correctional Service Department as evidence of the defendant being an addict of cocaine. The solicitor emphasises that the defendant is genuinely remorseful, thus pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity. He asks for the leniency of the court.

Sentence

The Court of Appeal laid down the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in cocaine in the cases of AG v Rojas[1994] 1 HKC 342 and R v Lau Tak Ming & Ors [1990] 2 HKLR 370. For a quantity of 10 to 50 grammes of cocaine, the starting point is 5 to 8 years imprisonment. The amount of cocaine involved in the present case is 25.5 grammes. The starting point is about 6 years 2 months imprisonment.

The solicitor for the defendant says in mitigation that the defendant is a victim of his over-cared parents, to this I must express my total disagreement. The parents are the victims of the case instead of the defendant. As can be seen from the mitigation letters and the background of the defendant, the parents have always pampered him with enormous love, care and support. The defendant attended good schools and finished his university education. He is no doubt indebted to his parents but he has chosen to hurt them and ruin his own future by indulging in dangerous drug. The defendant himself is the one to be blamed. It is sad to see a young man who otherwise has a bright future falls into disgrace.

There are plenty of authorities saying that in an offence of such a serious nature, the good background of the defendant is of very limited, if any, mitigation value. The court, however, accepts that part of the dangerous drug was for the own consumption of the defendant and is prepared to exercise its discretion to give him discount in sentence in this regard. Otherwise than that, the court sees no reasons to depart from the sentencing guidelines, thus adopting 6 years 2 months imprisonment as a starting point. Giving credit to the guilty plea of the defendant and taking into consideration the discount that part of the dangerous drug was for the consumption of the defendant, the court sentences him to 3 years 8 months imprisonment.