HKSAR v. CHEUNG TAK CHI

DCCC310/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 310 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (Charge 1) and another count of failing to surrender to custody (Charge 2).

2.  In the evening of 18 September 2009, a team of police officers mounted an anti-drug operation at Yat Tung House, Tung Tau Estate in Wong Tai Sin.  At around 7.30 pm, one of the police officers intercepted the Defendant outside Room 1103 on the 11th floor of Yat Tung House.  At the time, the Defendant was about to return home and acted in a furtive manner.

3.  Upon search, 3 resealable plastic bags of crystalline solid suspected to be dangerous drug were found in the Defendant’s left trousers’ pocket.  Under verbal caution, the Defendant asked for a chance and admitted that he would consume most of the “Ice” and sell the rest of them to others.

4.  Later, the police officers entered the Defendant’s home for a house search using the keys found on the Defendant. Upon search of the Defendant’s bedroom, the police officer found an electronic scale, a notebook and 22 empty resealable plastic bags, 13 of them were similar to those found on the Defendant.

5.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant claimed under caution that 2 bags of the “Ice” found on him were for his own consumption.  For the remaining bag, he would sell it to his friends. He also claimed that he would use the plastic bags and the electronic scale to apportion the “Ice” for selling to his friends, and he would also use the notebook to record down the money owed to him by his friends when selling the “Ice” to them.

6.  Upon examination by the Government Chemist, the 3 plastic bags of suspected dangerous drug were found to contain a total of 1.42 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.34 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice.”  The above quantity of “Ice” could be sold at street level to a drug abuser for $1,100.

7.  In respect of the offence under the 2nd charge, the Defendant was admitted to court bail and was appointed by the District Court to surrender to custody at 9.30 am on 21 September 2010.  However, the Defendant did not show up as appointed, and a warrant of arrest was issued against the Defendant.

8.  On 3 October 2010, while patrolling on the street, a police officer intercepted the Defendant in a stop-and-search, and it was then revealed that he was in fact a wanted person.  The Defendant was re-arrested.

9.  In a record of interview, the Defendant claimed under caution that he was feeling unwell in the morning on 21 September 2010, and he therefore sought medical treatment in a hospital.  He was discharged at around noon on the same day.  At around 3 pm on the same day, the Defendant went to the District Court and was told by a staff therein that a warrant had been issued against him.  The Defendant felt scared and dared not to surrender himself to custody or return home.

10.  The Defendant is aged 37 and he has previous convictions in respect of 13 offences.  6 of the offences were related to possession of dangerous drug or Part 1 poison.  Prior to his arrest, the Defendant was living with his old-age mother and his cohabitee and his daughter aged 1 and a half years old in Wong Tai Sin.  His last employment was a driver.  Because he had been disqualified for driving, he lost his job. According to the defence solicitor, the Defendant committed the offence because of economic pressure.

11.  For up to 10 grammes of “Ice,” the starting point is 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment (see of AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125).  Although the Defendant claims that he consumed part of the “Ice” and intended to resell the rest to his friend, it makes very little difference in terms of the starting point of the sentence.  As only 1.34 grammes of “Ice” was involved in the present case, I adopt the lower starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence for the 1st charge is one of 2 years’ imprisonment.

12.  For the offence in the 2nd charge, although the police confirms that the Defendant in fact sought medical treatment in hospital that morning, there is no reason why the Defendant did not surrender to the police after he left hospital.  In such case, I adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment.  Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence for the 2nd charge is reduced to 2 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutive to the sentence in Charge 1, making a total of 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

13.  In respect of the bail money, since I have already sentenced the Defendant to 2 months’ imprisonment for his failure to surrender and his family is in need of money, I order the bail money be returned to the Defendant.

DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honour.