HKSAR v. URFAN YOUNUS

DCCC 556/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 556 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to Section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.  At around 8.41 pm on 18 April 2016, defendant was spotted acting furtively outside Ching Yuen House, Tsz Ching Estate, Wong Tai Sin after getting off a taxi.  Upon search by the police, a bag of dangerous drugs was found from a cigarette box inside defendant’s rear trousers pocket.  It was later confirmed by government chemist to be 30 grammes of crystalline solid containing 4.02 grammes of methamphetamine (“Ice”).

3.  Under caution, defendant first claimed in Punti that the “Ice” was given to him by Ar Ho in Sham Shui Po.  Ar Ho asked him to deliver the “Ice”.  The defendant said he would receive a reward of 200 after delivering the “Ice”.  With the assistance of interpreter, defendant changed and stated that “the drugs were for self-consumption”.

4.  Upon further body search, only very small amount of cash was found from him.

5.  In the first video recorded interview, defendant claimed that he did not know the full name of Ar Ho and had no means to contact him.  He came to know Ar Ho at a video games centre in Sham Shui Po.  Ar Ho then asked him to collect the drugs from a public toilet.  The drugs were left there earlier.  After picking up the drugs for about half an hour, he took the taxi to offence location with another, pursuant to instructions from Ar Ho.  It was the other man who told the taxi driver where to go.

6.  In the second video recorded interview, defendant stated that he did not know the other male and they did not talk during the taxi ride.  Defendant did not have any money to pay for the taxi fare.  Hence it was the other male who paid.  Defendant was promised by Ar Ho a reward of 200 for the delivery of the drugs.  He was unemployed at the material time and he was a CSSA recipient with 2,000 per month.  He knew some Cantonese.  He explained the drugs were obtained from a drawer behind a public toilet and was meant to be delivered to a Chinese male.

7.  It is estimated the drugs’ value worth about $720.

8.  Defendant now admits that he was in possession of the drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

9.  Defendant aged 37. He had 3 previous criminal convictions, including the latest one in 2013 for possession of dangerous drugs, where he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment.

10.  Mr Littlewood submitted that the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and had full co-operation with the police. Defendant had borrowed some money from his friends, following the death of his father in Pakistan.  Defendant had been working as a carpet salesman for many years before he lost his job and got into money trouble and he then committed the present offence for a small reward of $200 only.

11.  Mr Littlewood further submits that all the drugs were for trafficking purpose and no part of which was for self-consumption.

12.  Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal in AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 had laid down the guidelines.  For trafficking of “Ice” up to 10 grammes, 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment shall be imposed.

13.  In the present case, there was 4.02 grammes of “Ice”.  4½ years’ imprisonment may be adopted as the starting point.

14.  However, as the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, thus saving court’s costs and time, together with all the mitigating factors submitted to this court, I consider that 4 years’ imprisonment is the appropriate starting point.  Upon defendant’s guilty plea, I reduce it to 32 months.

15.  Therefore, for the present offence, defendant is sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.