HKSAR v. LEUNG MING CHUNG

DCCC 483/2018

[2019] HKDC 587

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 483 OF 2018

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant stands convicted after trial of one charge of trafficking in 30.29 grammes of cocaine, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance[1].

2.  Full particulars of the offence are set out in my reasons for verdict handed down today.  In summary at around 11:15 p.m. on 27 March 2018 plain clothes police officers including DPC 12507 were conducting an anti-narcotics operation at the outdoor carpark outside the ground floor of San Shui House, Shui Pin Wai Estate in Yuen Long when they saw the defendant drive private car VE 9273 into the carpark and stop inside the carpark on the roadside and not in a carpark space.

3.  The defendant alighted from the driver’s seat and walked towards another private car VJ 4057 which was parked in the carpark.  The defendant looked around as he approached VJ 4057.  When the defendant was about one meter from VJ 4057 he pointed the remote at VJ 4057 and unlocked VJ 4057.

4.  At this stage the police found the conduct of the defendant suspicious and approached the defendant.  When the defendant saw DPC 12507 approach he used the remote to lock VJ 4057, turned round and hurriedly went back to VE 9273.   The police intercepted the defendant as he was about to get into VE 9273.

5.  The police searched VJ 4057 with the key found on the defendant and found inside the storage compartment between the driver and passenger seats a white plastic bag containing 160 transparent re-sealable plastic bags containing a total of 33.4 grammes of a solid containing 23 grammes of cocaine. 

6.  With the assistance of a police drug detector dog the police found underneath the electric window control on the driver door panel a further 51 transparent re-sealable plastic bags containing a total of 10.67 grammes of a solid containing 7.29 grammes of cocaine. 

7.  I was satisfied the only inference to draw was that the defendant was in possession of the cocaine knowing it was a dangerous drug and that from the quantity, packaging and value of the drugs the defendant possessed the cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. 

Mitigation

8.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Khosa, including that the defendant has a clear record and that prior to his arrest he was in employment. 

9.  I take into account most of the prosecution case was admitted saving some court time. One witness, DPC 12507, was called and DPC 11000 tendered for cross-examination. 

Guidelines

10.  The courts have equated for sentencing purposes cocaine with heroin[2].  In R v Lau Tak Ming the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for trafficking in heroin[3].  The court said that the sentence upon conviction after trial where the quantity of narcotic is between 10 and 50 grammes falls within the range of 5-8 years’ imprisonment. 

11.  On a purely arithmetical approach a starting point of just over 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate for trafficking in 30.29 grammes of cocaine. 

12.  Taking into account the defendant has no previous convictions and that some court time was saved by the defence admitting most of the prosecution case I adopt a lower starting point of 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

13.  There are no grounds to further reduce the sentence.  The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.