HKSAR v. WONG HO CHEUNG

DCCC 310/2018

[2018] HKDC 1517

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 310 OF 2018

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in 22.2 grammes of a solid containing 20.9 grammes of cocaine, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (charge 2)[1].

2.  In summary at around 1858 hours on 26 January this year the police intercepted the defendant when he left Room 818 on the 8/Floor of Lai Lo House, Lai Kok Estate in Sham Shui Po. 

3.  The police then executed a search warrant to conduct a search of Room 818.  During the search the police found two brown paper bags next to the mattress of the defendant’s bed.

4.  One paper bag contained a total of one hundred transparent re-sealable plastic bags inside which was the cocaine.  The other paper bag contained forty brown paper bags, over four hundred transparent re-sealable plastic bags, a pair of scissors and an electronic scale.  

5.  Under caution the defendant admitted that the cocaine was for selling. 

Mitigation

6.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Miss Wu both in court and in her written submission, including that the defendant committed the offence to earn quick money to support his family[2].

7.  I take into account the young age of the defendant together with the content of his mitigation letter in which the defendant asks for a chance to amend himself. 

Guidelines

8.  The courts have equated for sentencing purposes cocaine with heroin[3].  In R v Lau Tak Ming the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for trafficking in heroin[4].  The court said that the sentence upon conviction after trial where the quantity of narcotic is between 10 and 50 grammes falls within the range of 5-8 years’ imprisonment. 

9.  I am satisfied a starting point of 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for trafficking in 20.9 grammes of cocaine. 

Previous conviction

10.  The offence was committed just over five months after the defendant was released from prison having served a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in a dangerous drug. 

11.  In R v Lau Tak Ming the Court of Appeal stated that in determining sentence a court may properly take into account any previous history of narcotic offences. 

12.  In the circumstances I enhance the starting point by 3 months to 6 years’ imprisonment. 

13.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.