HKSAR v. CHENG YAU MO also known as FU KEUNG

DCCC 1100/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1100 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The drugs involved are 464 grammes of a solid containing 111 grammes of ketamine.

2.  At about noon on the day of offence, ie 8 September 2016, when the defendant tried to enter Hong Kong through Lok Ma Chau Checkpoint where he was stopped by Customs officers.  In his rucksack the officers found the drugs in question, which were put in a ziplock bag inside a black plastic bag.

3.  Being questioned about the drugs at the scene, the defendant initially lied to the officers by saying that they were for his own consumption, but in a subsequent investigation, he then admitted he was accompanied by another person to enter Hong Kong and he was to deliver the drugs to another in Hong Kong.

4.  The street value of the drugs was estimated to be over $150,000.

5.  His movement record shows that he left Hong Kong via Lo Wu at about 11.30 in the morning of the day of offence, and came back an hour later on the same day via Lok Ma Chau.

6.  He expressed his willingness to assist the Customs officers in a controlled delivery operation, which was then conducted on the same day.  The defendant had received calls from somebody who instructed him to take the drugs to a place in Hung Hom.  He went to the rendezvous with the Customs officers.  However, nobody turned up, and the operation had to be called off in the end.

7.  The defendant, aged 32, has amassed 13 convictions over the past 16 years, three of which are drug trafficking:  the first one in 2001; the second in 2006; the last one in 2010 (It was a High Court case for which he was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months).  At the time of the offence, the court was told that the defendant had a job as a kitchen helper, earning 13,000 a month.  His parents were divorced a long time ago, and the defendant has not been in contact with the father ever since.  He now lives with his mother, who is also working as a kitchen helper.

8.  The court was told about the circumstances in which he came to commit the offence.  His girlfriend was pregnant at the time and wanted an abortion.  Therefore, he needed money to finance the operation.  He tried to borrow money from his friend, “Fei Tat”, who told him to bring drugs into Hong Kong for a reward of $10,000, and before he was paid, he was arrested, and now his girlfriend left him.

9.  There are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence.  For trafficking ketamine in the amount of 50 grammes to 300 grammes, a term of 6 years to 9 years is to be considered, and for the amount of drugs the defendant trafficked in this case, I take 6 years and 9 months as a starting point.

10.  Looking at his criminal record, this is his fourth time of drug trafficking.  He is clearly a repeat offender of this offence, and I would add 3 months to take the starting point to 7 years, and reduce by one-third to 56 months to reflect his guilty plea.

11.  Now I come to the controlled delivery operation.  If the defendant was telling the truth about the fact that somebody was accompanying him to enter Hong Kong, any subsequent so‑called controlled delivery operation, hoping to make further arrest, would have been a wild goose chase, because the defendant’s arrest would have been witnessed by his companion, and those behind the scenes in this drug trade would have been alerted, in the least.  I would not be surprised to see that his assistance did not result in any arrest.  But in any event, the operation was done, and from the defendant’s perspective, he had given his assistance, and he should have been entitled to a further reduction in sentence.

12.  For this matter, I reduce one month to 55 months, and I see nothing for a further reduction in sentence.

13.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to a term of 55 months’ imprisonment.