HKSAR v. CHAN WA LUNG

DCCC 844/2022

[2023] HKDC 1837

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 844 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 23.9 grammes of a solid containing 20.5 grammes of cocaine.

2.  The Defendant was stopped and searched by police officers at 2005 hours after he was spotted to have behaved furtively alone on a private car.  He was holding a transparent resealable plastic bag in his hand, containing another transparent resealable plastic bag with 23.9 grammes of a solid containing 20.5 grammes of cocaine inside.  Under caution, the Defendant stated that the cocaine was for self consumption.  Upon further search, HK$13,000 cash and two mobile phones were found on the Defendant.  The estimated street value of the cocaine seized was HK$21,725.

Defendant’s Antecedent Statement and Mitigation

3.  The Defendant is 26 years old and lived with his mother, girlfriend and 2 year old son at the time of the offence.  He has 2 previous convictions, one of which was trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2013, for which he was sentenced to a Detention Centre order.

4.  Defence submitted that the Defendant committed the present offence due to financial pressure, and asked the Court for leniency.

Sentencing Guidelines

5.  According to AG v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69, the sentencing guidelines of trafficking in heroin applies to cases of trafficking in cocaine.  Under the sentencing guidelines stated in R v Lau Tak Ming and others [1990] 2 HKLR 370, for narcotic content of 20.5 grammes of cocaine, an arithmetic calculation would arrive at a starting point of 69.45 months.

Sentencing Considerations

6.  I have considered the Defendant’s guilty plea and his criminal record with 1 record of the same offence, mitigation letters from his girlfriend, mother and himself, and all mitigation advanced on his behalf.  His previous conviction of the same offence in 2013 constitutes as an aggravating factor in this case.  I have, however, decided not to enhance the starting point, as the Defendant was trying to cover the expenses required to raise his then 1 year old son in the midst of the covid pandemic.  I will adopt a starting point of 69 months’ imprisonment.  Due to the Defendant’s guilty plea, I will reduce it by one-third, to a sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment.  I do not consider that there are any circumstances for further discount of sentence.  The Defendant is therefore sentenced to 3 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.