HKSAR v. LAM CHUN YIN

HCCC 237/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 237 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The defendant, Lam Chun-yin, pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The offence took place on 12th day on July 2016, at the residence of the defendant, at Kwai Shing East Estate, Kwai Chung. The offence concerned 14.45 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 14.11 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 0.3 gramme of a solid containing 0.18 gramme of cocaine.

At around 1.20 pm on 12 July 2016, the defendant’s father was seen leaving his residence at Kwai Shing East Estate, Kwai Chung. He was intercepted when he left the building. He was then taken back to his residence for a search. Once get into the premises, the police found that the bedroom door was closed and there was someone behind the door, refusing to let them enter. The door was eventually forcibly opened, the defendant and a friend of the defendant were found inside.

The bedroom was searched. There was a plastic basket hanging next to the upper bunk bad. A metal box was found inside this basket. The officers found inside the metal box, four resealable plastic bags containing:

(1) One plastic bag containing 12.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 12.3 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

(2) One plastic bag containing 1.74 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.7 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

(3) One plastic bag containing 0.11 gramme of a crystalline solid containing 0.11 gramme of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

(4) One plastic bag containing 0.3 gramme of a solid containing 0.18 gramme of cocaine.

The police also found inside the plastic basket, one electronic scale and 123 empty transparent resealable plastic bags.

Under caution, the defendant said the substance found was ‘pork’, meaning the drug ‘Ice’. He said “I put the ‘Ice’ into these plastic bags by different quantities to facilitate my sales. I used the scale to weigh the quantity of the ‘Ice’, the dangerous drug ‘Ice’, plastic bags and the scale were all mine, and had nothing to do with my dad and my friend.”

The defendant was arrested. Under caution, he stated, “I admit that the dangerous drugs were mine. I sold dangerous drugs only because I wanted to earn quick money. My dad and my friend didn’t know it.”

The defendant worked at a warehouse part-time, he earned $450 per day, working 15 days a month.

The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs seized was $5,528.

The antecedents statement of the defendant says that he is now 20-years-old. He was born in Hong Kong. He completed Form 2 education in Hong Kong. He worked as a warehouse assistant before his arrest. He lived with his father and his brother at the premises in question. The criminal records of the defendant show that he has four previous convictions. In 2013, he was convicted of two counts of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and two counts of common assault. For these offences, he was put on probation for a period of 18 months.

Ms Cheung mitigates on behalf of the defendant. She tells me the defendant was only 18 when he was arrested. At the time of the offence, the defendant lived with his father and his elder brother. The mother of the defendant separated with his father when he was in kindergarten. The father, a kitchen assistant, had to work for 12 hours a day when the defendant was at school. The mother maintains a good relationship with the defendant all along. According to the mother, the defendant is a filial son.

Ms Cheung submits two mitigation letters, one written by the defendant and one by the mother. Ms Cheung submits that part of the dangerous drugs seized, although not a substantial part, was intended for the defendant’s own consumption. She submits that the urine test shows a positive result to amphetamine and Mr Cheng for the prosecution accepts that the defendant was a drug user at the time of his arrest. Ms Cheung submits that the defendant sold drugs to fund his own addiction. He is of young age and she asked me to pass a lenient sentence on the defendant.

In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the quantity and the nature of the drugs involved, the background information of the defendant, the mitigation made on behalf of the defendant by Ms Cheung. This case concerned two kinds of dangerous drugs, ie, methamphetamine hydrochloride and cocaine. The cocaine involved was of minute quantity. I will ignore the presence of the cocaine for the purpose of sentencing.

For the ‘Ice’ involved, ie, 14.11 grammes of ‘Ice’, applying the tariff as set down by the Court of Appeal in Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125, as modified in HKSAR v Capitania [2004] HKCU 926, a starting point of 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for trafficking between 10 and 70 grammes. In the present case, a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. The defendant pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, he is entitled to a one-third reduction for his guilty plea. That will bring his sentence down to 56 months’ imprisonment.

I am aware that the defendant was only 18 years old at the time of his arrest but he has four previous convictions. In 2013, he was convicted of two counts of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and two counts of common assault and he was put on probation for 18 months. Obviously, the probation order failed to deter the defendant from reoffending.

In the present case, I am unable to give any further reductions on account of the defendant’s young age. I accept that the defendant was a drug addict at the time of his arrest. The urine test of the defendant shows that the urine sample was positive to amphetamine. I accept Ms Cheung’s submissions that some of the drugs seized was intended for the defendant’s own consumption though not of a substantial quantity. I am prepared to give the defendant 4 months’ reduction for the fact that some of the drugs seized was intended for the defendant’s own consumption. That will bring the sentence down to 52 months’ imprisonment.

For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 52 months’ imprisonment.