HKSAR v. CHONG YUK SUI

HCCC 461/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 461 OF 2014

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one charge of possession of a dangerous drug. He was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today he pleaded guilty again before me and stands convicted of the charges.

In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. On 9 April 2014 the defendant went into a flat which he admitted to be his residence and stayed there for almost two hours. When he came out he was stopped by police officers. Officers found inside his messenger bag items including six bags of “Ice” and some cash.

Under caution he said he got those dangerous drugs for sale and for his own consumption. With the keys found on him, the police gained access into the flat. There two bags of cocaine, an electronic scale, a large quantity of empty re‑sealable plastic bags, an “Ice” pot, some cash and some other items were found.

In a subsequent interview the defendant said he bought the “Ice” on the day of the offence for $10,000. He also said some of the “Ice” was for his own consumption and some for selling to his friends. The electronic scale was used to weigh dangerous drugs. The plastic bags were for packing of “Ice”. The cocaine was for his own consumption. He consumed about 1 to 2 grammes of cocaine and consumed about 1 gram of “Ice” each day. The money found was not proceeds of trafficking.

The quantity of the “Ice” found in the defendant’s messenger bag was 91.83 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 89.9 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The quantity of cocaine found inside the flat was 29.19 grammes of a solid containing 13.92 grammes of cocaine.

I was told that the defendant is now 57 years of age. He received education up to Form 2 and had worked as a renovation worker. He has two marriages. His second marriage took place in 2012 and his present wife lived in the mainland. The defendant lived alone in Hong Kong.

The defendant is not a first-time offender. He had been convicted on six occasions. Back in 1975 when he was 17 years old he was bound over for being a member of a triad society. He has also been convicted of a vice offence. In 2001 and 2006 he was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs. In 2009 he was sentenced to 56 months’ imprisonment for a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. At the same time he was convicted for possession of an identity card relating to another person, and for that he has to serve an additional sentence of six months.

Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Yu, urged me to take into account that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He also told the court that the defendant started to engage in dangerous drugs during his unhappy first marriage. The fact that his first wife left him bringing with her the two children was a severe blow to the defendant which drove him to be more dependent on drugs.

Learned counsel also told the court that after the defendant had been discharged after serving the sentence imposed on him for his conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs, he tried to turn over a new leaf and worked as a decoration worker. He married a lady living in Shenzhen. He helped her to start a business selling children’s wear there. However, business was not good and the defendant ended up in a debt over 150,000 Renminbi.

It was in these difficult financial circumstances that the defendant committed the offence of trafficking. A letter written by the defendant in which he indicated his remorse was also produced.

The dangerous drug which the defendant trafficked in was “Ice”. The Court of Appeal held in AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125, that in a case of trafficking in “Ice” where the narcotic content was between 70 to 300 grammes, the sentence should range from 10 years to 14 years’ imprisonment.

It was asserted that about 20 grammes of the “Ice” which the defendant possessed were for the defendant’s own consumption. Having regard to the previous record of possession of dangerous drugs, an admission which the defendant made immediately upon arrest and repeated in a subsequent interview, the positive result of the urine test conducted upon his admission in Lai Chi Kwok Reception Centre and the existence of an “Ice” pot in the flat, I am prepared to accept that the defendant was going to retain part of the ice for his own consumption.

However, I have indicated to learned counsel that in light of the fact that the defendant was bringing the “Ice” out from his residence, I have much reservation in accepting only upon counsel’s submissions that the defendant was to retain as much as 20 grammes for his own consumption.

Upon taking further instruction, learned counsel informed the court that the defendant was taking the “Ice” out to store in another place since he did not want to store the dangerous drug in his own place.

I have again indicated to learned counsel that I would not be going to accept this assertion only upon counsel’s submission. Learned counsel expressly informed the court that the defendant was only relying on his submission.

In all the circumstances, taking into account what I have just said and I accept that a very small proportion of the “Ice” found was for the defendant’s own consumption. At the same time I also bear in mind that even the offence of possession carries an imprisonment term and the substantial risk of latent risk in the circumstances of the present case.

I also bear in mind the observation of Yeung VP in HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang CACC 135/2011, which learned counsel brought to my attention.

In my judgment, a starting point of 10 years is appropriate for the trafficking charge, Charge 1, in all the circumstances of the present case.

For the possession charge, Charge 2, which involves cocaine, bearing in mind the substantial latent risk, I adopt a starting point of 3 years.

The defendant pleaded guilty to these charges and therefore is entitled to a one-third discount.

In all the circumstances, having regard to everything which learned counsel submitted on the defendant’s behalf, I am of the view that one-third is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to in this case.

Having regard to totality, I am of the view that it is appropriate in this case for the two sentences to run concurrently.

Yes, defendant, please stand up.

For the above said reasons I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 6 years and 8 months for Charge 1; 2 years for Charge 2. I further order the two sentences to run concurrently.

So you are to serve a total sentence of 6 years and 8 months for the two charges.