HKSAR v. CHAN LAI MEI

DCCC964/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 964 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges today: 1st charge trafficking in 6.39 grammes of “ice”. This was on 5 May this year; secondly, 2nd charge, failure to produce her identity card on demand to a police officer; thirdly, failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause. She was meant to return to court on 20 June 2011 after she was granted bail, but failed to answer this bail timely and was ultimately re-arrested two months later.

2.  The facts of this case are very straightforward.  On 5 May this year the police conducted an anti-dangerous drugs operation, and the defendant was targeted as she left a room in Ng Po House, 103-109 Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok.  Police officers followed her as she left the building, kept her under observation, and then stopped and searched her on the streets of Mong Kok. 

3.  When the defendant was stopped she was unable to produce any proof of her identity, hence Charge 2.  She told the officers she had lost her Hong Kong Identity Card two days prior. 

4.  Upon a search of the defendant the “ice” was found in one packet inside a pocket of the defendant’s clothing.  She was arrested for possession of dangerous drugs and failure to produce a proof of identity.  Under caution she said that she had bought the “ice” for her own consumption from a friend named Ah Keung for $4,200.  The street value has been agreed at HK$4,565.

5.  The defendant was given bail and ordered to return, as I have said, to court on 20 June 2011.  She failed to surrender to court on that day.  She was re-arrested on 19 August when she appeared in the same magistracy she was meant to return to so she could appear as a defence witness in another case. 

6.  The defendant is not of clear record but has no similar previous convictions.  Her record consists of one theft conviction in the year 2008 where she was fined $800.  She is now 31 years old and a divorced mother of a 15 year old son.  She now lives with her parents and her siblings, as well as her child.

7.  The defendant’s best mitigation today is her plea of guilty.  She admits trafficking this amount of dangerous drugs.  There are guidelines for sentencing where trafficking “ice” is concerned, and I've been correctly referred to the authority of R v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2HKLR at 125.  The appropriate guideline would be for this case where between 0 to 12 grammes of “ice” is trafficked a 3 to 7 year term of imprisonment would be appropriate.  Mathematically speaking, here 6.39 grammes of “ice” should attract a 5 year term of imprisonment. 

8.  Miss Chan of counsel has addressed me as to the appropriate sentences for Charges 2 and 3 as well, and assisted me by referring to HKSAR v Lam Kin Chung CACC27/2007.  That authority relates to a defendant who had jumped bail for a period of over nine years and received a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment after plea. 

9.  Defendant, please stand up.  After considering the facts of this case, the dangerous drugs and the quantity involved, your previous record not involving any similar offences, and lastly mitigation put forward on your behalf, for Charge 1 I find a starting point of 4 years and 6 months appropriate.  You are entitled to a discount of one-third for your plea.  For Charge 1 you will be sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. 

10.  For Charge 2 I will take a starting point of 3 weeks’ imprisonment.  You are entitled to a discount of one-third for your plea.  For Charge 2 I sentence you to 2 weeks’ imprisonment. 

11.  Charge 3, I have considered the circumstances and the time you have jumped bail and take a 6 month starting point.  You are entitled to a discount of one-third for your plea.  For Charge 3 I sentence you to 4 months’ imprisonment. 

12.  Charge 1 and 2 were committed on the same day. Charges 1 and 2 will be ordered to be served concurrently.  Charge 3, the offence is of an entirely different nature and committed on a different date subsequent to Charges 1 and 2.  I find a partly concurrent and partly consecutive approach entirely appropriate to reflect this and to reflect the totality principle.  Of the 4 months of Charge 3, I will order 2 months be concurrent to Charge 1 and 2 months to be served consecutively to Charge 1. 

13.  That would mean a total sentence for Charges 1, 2 and 3 of 3 years and 2 months.