HKSAR v. CHEUNG WAI SHING

DCCC 691/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 691 OF 2013

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

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

REASONSFOR SENTENCE

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

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

2.  The drug involved was 6.87 grammes of “ice”.

Admitted facts

3.  The facts admitted by the defendant revealed that on 18 April 2013 the defendant and another male attempted to flee when they saw police officers approaching them in the vicinity of Tin Pin Estate, Sheung Shui.  Eventually the defendant was subdued whilst the other male successfully fled.  Upon search, 6.87 grammes of “ice” which were contained in 17 plastic bags were found inside a box hidden under the waistband of the defendant’s underpants.

4.  Under caution, the defendant admitted possession of “ice”.  He added that he was instructed by the male who had fled to hide those drugs at On Shing Court and would complete a transaction later.  He would receive a reward of HK$500.

5.  The street value of the drugs in question was about HK$4,940.

Mitigation

6.  The defendant now aged 18 is of clear record.  He was educated up to secondary level.  He worked as air-conditioner maintenance trainee until January 2013 and remained unemployed since then.  He is currently residing with his father and his elder brother.

7.  In mitigation, it was submitted that he was 17 years of age at the time of the offence and committed the offence out of greed.  He is now very remorseful for his misdeed.

Sentence

8.  For trafficking of “ice”, sentencing tariff has been laid down in AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125, as amended in HKSAR v Capitania [2004] HKCU 926: where narcotic content is up to 10 grammes, sentence should range from 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment.

9.  In our present case, the defendant is now 18 years of age but he cannot be regarded as of extreme youth.  In R v Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 at 386E-G, the Court of Appeal articulated that:-

"It must be borne in mind that these are offences of the utmost gravity which may well result in mitigating factors which, for less serious offences could lead to a discount, having little weight. By this we mean age and disability - though extreme youth may call for special consideration. Drug dealers are notorious for attempting to elicit sympathy from the Courts for their middlemen by the use of the blind, the maimed, the halt, the young and the aged in the carrying out of their nefarious trade."

10.  This case is a typical example of how an immature young person, who could not resist the lure of modest reward, was manipulated by criminals to engage in drug trafficking activities.  For a serious offence as such, a sentence of deterrent effect is called for otherwise it will attract even younger drug traffickers.

11.  Having considered everything urged upon me, I find no justification to depart from the usual sentencing tariff. Having considered the quantity involved and all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4½ years.  To reflect his guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 36 months.  Apart from that, I fail to see any mitigating factor that warrants further discount.

12.  In the result, the defendant is sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment.