HKSAR v. CHANG KIN CHOW

HCCC 117/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 117 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant pleaded guilty two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, and one charge of possession of an ID card relating to another person, contrary to section 7A(1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap 177.

He was stopped and searched by police officer whilst having boarded a vehicle and ignited the engine at a carpark. Two plastic bags of ‘Ice’, the subject matter of the 1st charge, were found in his trousers pocket. Upon analysis, it was found that the drugs were a total of 4.49 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 4.36 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. It was also found that the private car, which the defendant admitted to belong to him, bore a forged licence plate.

A search at his residence nearby revealed a further four bags of ‘Ice’ placed inside a wardrobe, which, upon analysis, turned out to be 32.1 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 31 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. There were also two electronic scales and one pair of tweezers and a plastic bottle fitted with two straws and another plastic bottle containing liquid with traces of ‘Ice’ on a coffee table, and on a desk was an identity card with another person’s name which was later confirmed by the government chemist to be a genuine card and the holder reported loss of the card back in 2006.

The defendant admitted he bought the ID card for HK$500 and intended to use it for renting a flat. He admitted all the drugs belonged to him and he bought them for reselling. He said that he intended to keep some the drugs for his personal consumption.

The value of the drugs seized was around $11,000.

He is now aged 45. He has 36 previous convictions, of which 15 were drugs related and two of which were for trafficking. He has three previous regarding identity card offence and in fact, in 2007, he received 12 months’ imprisonment for possession of an ID card relating to another person and that is ordered to run consecutively to the sentences in respect of other charges. His last conviction was in November 2012 for the offence of possession of dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment.

By way of mitigation, Mr Ho told me that the greatest mitigating factor is his guilty plea and he should be entitled to his full one-third discount. I was told about his family condition, that he has a fiancée with a son who is now aged 3½ whom he had no chance to see since his remand in September 2015. I was also told that he had a stable job. Back in 2014, he worked as a fulltime decoration worker at the Hong Kong Airport earning $18,000 per month. It is not that he has no money so that he resorted to drugs. It was because he wanted to raise his son that he resorted to earn quick money.

In sentencing the defendant, I have regard to the facts of the case, the drugs, his previous convictions, the guidelines and the letters and documents submitted by the defence.

According to the guideline laid down in the case of Tam Yi Chun, trafficking in 10 to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’ attracts a starting point ranging from 7 to 11 years. The total narcotics in the present case being 35.36 grammes, I consider a starting point of 105 months appropriate.

Although Mr Ho urged me that a significant portion of the drugs seized were for the defendant’s own consumption, namely about 10 per cent, I have considered the following factors in accordance with the case of Wong Suet Hau. Firstly, the total weight of the narcotics; secondly, the drugs found in his flat were wrapped in four bags; he was intercepted at a carpark, boarding a vehicle, ignited the engine, and it is clear that he was going to deliver drugs to someone in respect of the 1st charge because it is unlikely and unusual that the drugs for his own consumption he would carry around and board a vehicle with the drugs that he wanted to consume.

There were paraphernalia associated with consumption of drugs in his residence and he has both previous records of possession and trafficking in dangerous drugs and claimed to be still so addicted. As I have said to his counsel, whilst it is not uncommon for drug addicts to feed their own consumption by trafficking, that the defendant might consume a small amount from the drugs seized in question, I do not accept that a significant portion or discernible portion of the drugs which warrant an extra adjustment to sentence were for his own consumption.

I shall give him the full one-third discount. He is sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment for the two charges and I apportion them as follows:

Charge 1, two years. Charge 2, 70 months, to run concurrently. In relation to Charge 3, 12 months on a plea is the norm and that will be the sentence for Charge 3, to run consecutively to sentences in respect of Charges 1 and 2, which means a total of 82 months’ imprisonment.