HKSAR v. YUAN QINGRONG

DCCC610/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 610 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to and been convicted of three offences. The first offence is trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely, 1.69 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “Ice,” and in the same charge, traces of “Ice” in a liquid form. Charge 2 was also trafficking in dangerous drugs. You have pleaded guilty to trafficking in an unknown quantity of “Ice.” Charge 3 is a charge of keeping a drugs divan where the drug methamphetamine hydrochloride or again “Ice” was kept, was sold and was consumed on the premises.

2.  The facts of this case are straightforward.  It was 29 April, early in the morning, and the police saw two young girls leave a premises that they were watching.  When I say “young girls,” they were 16 and 17 years old.  Upon seeing this, the police went to the flat.  They searched it and they found a variety of drugs-related paraphernalia.  The paraphernalia was strewn about the flat, and all the indications were that this was a place where drugs were consumed.  The police found dangerous drugs on the premises, namely, those drugs that are specified in the charges.  They also found a small sum of cash, $410.40.

3.  The use of this flat as a drugs divan was confirmed by you, Defendant, when you were interviewed under caution.  I am told and you have admitted that this offence was committed whilst you were on bail in respect of a charge of possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and I am told that in respect of that case, you have pleaded guilty, a DATC report is pending, and you are due to return to the magistrates’ court on 28 July. 

4.  The total value of the or the estimated total value of the drugs in Charges 1 and 2 in this case is $1,066. 

Mitigation

5.  I have heard from your counsel, Mr Lam.  He tells me that you have a clear record and reminds me that you have pleaded guilty.  Those are your best two points in mitigation.  I have been told you are 42, you are divorced and you have a son but you do not have any access to him. 

6.  Mr Lam has also addressed me on the issue of the enhancement of sentence that is sought by the prosecution.  An enhancement is sought under section 56A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. And just so that you understand, Defendant, it enables me as the sentencing court to enhance the sentence where minors are involved in a trafficking-of-drugs case.  Precisely what “minor” is is not defined in the ordinance, but 16, 17‑year-olds I would consider to be minors.

7.  Let me turn then to the sentence that I shall impose in this case.  For Charge 1, for trafficking in this quantity of dangerous drugs, the guideline or the tariff is a sentence of between 3 and 7 years.  The quantity involved here is small, and the value is relatively low. For Charge 1, I was going to take a starting point of 3 years, but I will in fact take a starting point of 3 and a half years to reflect the aggravating feature, namely, the youth of the two girls who had clearly been using your drugs divan. 

8.  Thus, for Charge 1, I take a starting point of 3 and a half years, that is, 42 months.  I reduce that by one-third to reflect your plea of guilty which then will arrive at a sentence of 28 months or 2 years and 4 months.

Charge 2

9.  This is an unknown quantity of “Ice.”  I take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.  I reduce that by one‑third to reflect your plea which means a sentence of 12 months in respect of Charge 2.

Charge 3

10.  This is the charge of keeping a divan.  The factors which I take into account are the scale of the operation, the degree of concealment, whether dangerous drugs were actually sold or supplied on the premises, and the profit or potential profit derived by you as the keeper of the divan.

11.  Here this was, in my view, a small-scale operation.  It was a limited quantity of dangerous drugs on the premises.  It was a small sum of cash found, and although there was a notebook perhaps recording details of the operation, I am told and I accept that even that seems to indicate it was a fairly limited‑scale operation.

12.  However, I note that you had yourself actually made some of the devices for the consumption of drugs.  Clearly, dangerous drugs were sold and/or supplied in the premises, and I also again note the age of at least two of your customers, all of which will be reflected in the starting point that I take.  And before anybody complains that there may be an element of double counting the age or the youth of your customers as an aggravating feature, I shall deal with that when I come to the issue of totality.

13.  Having considered all of the factors and reviewed the authorities helpfully presented to me by both the prosecution and the defence, I take a starting point of 3 years.  I reduce this of course to take account of your plea of guilty to a sentence of 2 years.

14.  Now I come to the issue of whether the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive or partially so and the issue of totality. All of these offences arise from what is in a sense a single incident.  It is the same date, time, place, 29 April this year, and thus, in my view, all of the sentences should be entirely concurrent with one another.

15.  Let me then briefly review the sentence that is going to be imposed on you.  Charge 1: starting point of 3 and a half years reduced by one-third gives us a sentence of 28 months; Charge 2: 18 months reduced to reflect your plea to 12 months; Charge 3: starting point of 3 years reduced to reflect your plea to one of 2 years.  All the sentence will be concurrent with one another.  Therefore, you shall go to prison for a period of 28 months or 2 years and 4 months.