HKSAR v. LEE TAK KEUNG

DCCC 328/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 328 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has been convicted on his own plea on one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to Sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, the dangerous drugs being 12.42 grammes of a solid containing 9.42 grammes of cocaine.

2.  Facts admitted by the defendant disclose that police officers had mounted an anti-narcotics operation in the vicinity of Ping Shek Estate in Nagu Tau Kok on 6 February, 2012. At about 2222 hours, police officers saw a taxi bearing registration mark NS 8614 parked outside Kam Shek House.  The defendant was alone in the taxi, sitting in the driver’s seat.  He got off the taxi.  Police officers intercepted the defendant.  The taxi was searched and 44 plastic bags containing the dangerous drugs the subject matter of the present charge were found in the storage compartment at the right front door of the taxi.   The defendant was arrested and cautioned and under caution he admitted that these were dangerous drugs, that he owed over HK$100,000 to a loan shark and hence helped an unknown person, Ah Ming, to deliver dangerous drugs to earn money.  In a subsequent video recorded interview under caution, the defendant said he owed a debt to a loan shark and was introduced by the loan shark to Ah Ming.  Ah Ming asked the defendant to sell cocaine to earn money – he would earn $80 for each bag of cocaine he sold, and each plastic bag of cocaine was to be sold at $400.  On 6 February, 2012, Ah Ming called the defendant and asked him to drive the taxi to a market in To Kwa Wan.  An unknown male boarded the taxi and gave the cocaine to the defendant, and the defendant placed the cocaine in the storage compartment at the right front door of the taxi.  At about 2200 hours, Ah Ming called the defendant and asked him to go to Ping Shek Estate and that someone would come to buy the cocaine.  The dangerous drugs were examined by the Government Chemist who confirmed the 44 plastic bags contained 12.42 grammes of a mixture containing 9.42 grammes of cocaine.  At the time of his arrest, the defendant had HK$6,370 in cash with him, as well as HK$162.30, MOP1 and  RMB¥1 and 5 mobile phones.  The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs was HK$18,208.00.

3.  Mr Ng has entered full mitigation on behalf of the defendant. I have carefully considered all that has been urged by counsel on behalf of the defendant as well as the contents of the letters from himself, his sisters, his girlfriend and his nephew and niece.

4.  He is now aged 45 years and has a clear record. Although he is not married, he is in a relationship with Ms Lam May Lin, his girlfriend since almost 25 years.  They had planned to marry this year but this plan will now have to be postponed.  The defendant lives with his mother and second elder sister, and they both care for the mother, who is in her 80’s. The defendant has three other sisters as well.  His family is very supportive of him – his aged mother as well as all his sisters and his girlfriend are all in court today to show their support of the defendant.  The defendant has been a professional driver, and has been driving a taxi since 2001, and earned about $20,000 a month. He is not a drug dependant, I am told.  The defendant committed the present offence because of debts he had to a loan shark – his frozen meat business had failed and the defendant owed money and got caught up with the loan shark, who introduced him to someone in the drugs business so he could repay his debt. I am told that the defendant had only been doing this for a few days prior to his arrest in February, 2012.   Counsel submits that the defendant has learned his lesson and is truly remorseful, as reflected by his plea and also from the contents of his letter to the court.  It is unlikely that he will re-offend as through the collective efforts of his family members, the debt to the loan shark has now been repaid.

5.  In Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342, Silke VP observed that the harm of cocaine was closely linked to the harm of heroin and it was held that  the sentencing guideline for trafficking in heroin as set out in R v Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, was applicable to cocaine. For up to 10 grammes, the sentence is 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.

6.  Here, the cocaine involved is 9.42 grammes, close to the upper limit. For this quantity, I consider a starting point of 4 ½ years, that is 54 months, to be appropriate.  The court has said time and again that there is a need for deterrence when dealing with offences like trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Financial need cannot amount to mitigation warranting a reduction in sentence.  In the present case, the matters urged upon me in mitigation cannot detract from the fact that a deterrent sentence is called for as our society needs to get the message across that trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence. I have full sympathy for the defendant’s family situation, in particular his aged mother.  Nonetheless, drug trafficking offences do call for substantial sentences.  In light of the defendant’s plea and clear record, I shall give him the usual discount of one-third. I do not see any other mitigating factors warranting any further reduction in sentence.

7.  The defendant is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.