HKSAR v. YEUNG CHU KWAN

DCCC 203/2018

[2018] HKDC 1085

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 203 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  On the night of 4^th December 2017, a team of police officers armed with a search warrant laid ambush outside a flat in Mong Kok, there came a time when the defendant came back from outside was stopped by the officers, drugs (two kinds – heroin and Ice) were found on his person while drug paraphernalia (device for inhaling Ice) together with other things like electronic scale as well as resealable bags were later discovered in one of the rooms in the flat.

2.  The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking (Charges 1 & 2) and one count of possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug (Charge 3).

3.  The drugs involved in charge 1 are 36.39 grammes of a mixture containing 27.83 grammes of heroin hydrochloride; while in charge 2, the drugs are 4.23 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 4.20 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as Ice; charge 3 is concerned with an “Ice” inhaling device - a bottle inserted with a plastic straw and a glass tube.

4.  When asked about the drugs, the defendant told the police that the heroin was for selling to others but the Ice was for his own consumption and he used the bottle found in the room to inhale Ice.

5.  Police officers further found on the defendant cash $5,930, two keys – one to the flat and one to the room, and 2 mobile phones. Two women were present in the room but they were not charged with any offence.

6.  In his interview with the police, the defendant told the officers, inter alia, that:-

(a) -	He purchased the drugs from a man for $20,000 a couple of hours before he was arrested;
(b) -	He would repack the drugs before selling to others;
(c) -	His customers would come to the flat to buy drugs from him;
(d) -	The Ice was for his own consumption;
(e) -	He estimated he would make a profit of about $5,000 by selling the drugs;
(f) -	The cash $5,930 was the proceeds from selling heroin;
(g) -	The electronic scale was used to weigh drugs.

7.  The street value of seized heroin and Ice is estimated to be around $23,800 and $1,700 respectively.

8.  The defendant, aged 67, has amassed 48 prior convictions – 20 of them are drug-related, 3 are trafficking. His last drug conviction was trafficking in 2010 for which he was given a 5-year prison term; after his release from prison in 2013, he further committed a number of gambling offences the sentences of which were anything but immediate custodial.

9.  In mitigation, defence counsel did not have much to put forward except insofar as charge 2 was concerned, he said that a significant part of the drugs (Ice) was for the defendant’s own consumption; he also cited the urine test result in support which showed positive on Ice.

10.  Counsel for the defendant admitted that the defendant has an appalling criminal record going back as early as 1971 and undoubtedly, he is a repeat offender of drug offences. If the court were to enhance the sentence as a result, counsel said, he would ask the court to be as lenient as possible. 

11.  There are sentencing guidelines for trafficking in drugs like this – for trafficking heroin between 10 grammes and 50 grammes, a term of 5 to 8 years is to be considered; for trafficking up to 10 grammes of Ice, 3 to 7 years.

12.  For Charge 1, the defendant admitted to trafficking 27.83 grammes of heroin, I take 75 months as starting point.

13.  For charge 2, the defendant admitted to trafficking 4.20 grammes of Ice but a significant proportion was for self-consumption. Firstly, I take 56 months as starting point and reduce it by 11 months (about 20 %) on grounds of self-consumption to 45 months.

14.  As far as charge 3 is concerned, I take 9 months as starting point.

15.  The defendant’s pleas are timely, so he is entitled to a full one-third discount. Giving the appropriate discount, the terms for charges 1, 2 and 3 are reduced to 50 months, 30 months, and 6 months respectively.

16.  Looking at his records, the defendant is definitely a repeat offender for drug offences, but considering the resultant sentence he is going to receive would not be a light one, and for this reason I am not prepared to increase any of the terms on this ground on this occasion.

17.  Taking into account the totality principle, I order that the term of charge 1 be run consecutively to 4 months of charge 2 and 2 months of charge 3, and concurrently with the rest. The total term is one of 56 months’ imprisonment.