HKSAR v. CHEUK MAN TIK

DCCC 282/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 282 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Particulars are that he on 4^th January 2017, unlawfully trafficked in a solid containing 19.7 grammes of cocaine outside the bus terminus at Mei Tin Estate in Tai Wai.

Summary of facts

2.  The defendant was intercepted by Police officers outside the bus terminus at around 02:43 am. A body search was conducted and a cigarette box was found from the defendant’s jacket. Inside the box was one plastic bag containing the cocaine.

3.  The defendant was arrested. Under caution, the defendant said that he was delivering “coke” for a reward because his mother had incurred a lot of debts.

4.  At a later video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he meant cocaine when he said “coke” earlier. He said he met a man at dinner the day before, and the man asked if the defendant would deliver cocaine for him for a reward of $500.

5.  The defendant agreed because he was in need of money as his mother was about $1 million in debt. The man then gave the defendant the drugs and told him to have it delivered to the bus terminus before 3am on 4^th January.

6.  The defendant said he had no idea how to contact the man, nor had he received the $500 as promised since he was arrested before the delivery was done.

7.  The defendant claimed to have been a delivery worker earning $16,000 per month.

8.  Government Chemist certified that the bag of substance found on the defendant contained a 23.6 grammes of solid containing 19.7 grammes of cocaine. The street value of the drugs seized was $40,075.

Previous Convictions

9.  The defendant has 7 previous convictions. Two were for possession of dangerous drugs and one for trafficking in a dangerous drug.

Mitigation

10.  The defendant is 29, born in Hong Kong and educated up to Form 2 level. He worked as a casual worker doing odd jobs, earning $16,000 per month.

11.  The defendant has a girlfriend. They have a 6-month old baby girl who is now being looked after by Po Leung Kuk. The defendant is very remorseful about what he did and wishes to be able to look after the baby after his release.

12.  Ms Cheng for the defendant at first suggested that the defendant was in possession of some of the cocaine for his self-consumption. This court pointed out to her that according to the summary of facts, the defendant was to deliver the whole quantity of narcotics for a reward of $500. There was never any mention of part of the cocaine being for the defendant’s consumption. Time was given for her to take instructions. Upon resumption, Ms Cheng confirmed that the defendant no longer wanted to rely on self-consumption as a mitigating factor.

Sentence

13.  The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in heroin in the case of R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 was confirmed to be applicable to cases involving cocaine in Attorney General v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342; CAAR 15/1993. The sentence for trafficking in cocaine for quantities between 10g and 50g would be in the range of 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

14.  The cocaine content of our present case is 19.7 grammes. An arithmetical application of the tariff sentence would lead to a starting point of 69 months’ imprisonment.

15.  I do have sympathy towards the defendant for being separated from his newly born baby girl. However, the defendant knew what he was getting into when he agreed to make the delivery and he must now face the full consequences of his action.

16.  Although this is the defendant’s second conviction for trafficking in a dangerous drug, his last conviction was more than 7 years ago. I will not enhance his sentence on this basis.

17.  There being no aggravating factors in the circumstances of the defendant’s commission of the offence, and there being no mitigating factors other than the defendant’s timely plea of guilty, the defendant is sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment.