COURT: The defendant, Cheng Kin-leung, pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.
Now, the Summary of Facts submitted by the defendant. On the day in question, the police raided the defendant’s home in Sai Kung. Upon search, a blue shopping bag containing 15 blocks of heroin, that is, Exhibit P1, and a green shopping bag containing 12 blocks of heroin, P2, were found beside the defendant’s bed.
The defendant was arrested. Under caution, he admitted that he had agreed to deliver the dangerous drugs for others in return for a promise of a reward of $20,000. He told the police there were more dangerous drugs in the boot of his vintage car, which was parked at the open car park opposite to his home, and the car key was chained together with two other keys on a keychain hanging on the wall of his bedroom.
The police officers then continued to search the defendant’s home and found the following items, among others:
(i) Three rolls of vacuum packing plastic sheets and a vacuum sealing machine;
(ii) A black pouch containing cash of $1,000;
(iii) A bunch of three keys, that is, the car key the defendant’s private car and the defendant’s vintage car and a key to the iron gate of the staircase of the village house which the defendant was living in;
(iv) One Samsung mobile phone with two SIM cards; and
(v) Another Samsung mobile phone with one SIM card.
And later that day, the defendant brought the police to the car park where his vintage car was parked. Upon search, a plastic air-tight box containing another 12 blocks of heroin, that is, Exhibit P3, and three boxes of dehumidifier were found inside the boot. The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs. Under caution, the defendant admitted that those dangerous drugs were the remaining half of the lot that he was supposed to deliver for others.
A cautioned video-recorded interview was conducted with the defendant. Under caution, the defendant admitted, among other things, the following matters. He got acquainted with a male called ‘Gwong Jai’ in a garage a few months ago, and Gwong Jai offered him a job to deliver dangerous drugs with a monetary reward of $20,000. The defendant did not accept the job right away, but they exchanged telephone numbers for contact. As the defendant was in need of money, he later called this Gwong Jai and agreed to take up this drug delivery job, and he bought packing items, such as vacuum sealing machine, plastic bags as instructed by Gwong Jai.
Upon the instruction of Gwong Jai, he picked up three shopping bags containing dangerous drugs near a rubbish bin in an open car park in Fanling. Afterwards, Gwong Jai told him that the dangerous drugs were heroin. He stored the heroin blocks in the boot of his vintage car parked in the open car park space opposite his home. He was the sole holder of the car key to his vintage car. And he later took 20 blocks of heroin from the boot of his vintage car for vacuum sealing. And he had not received any money from Gwong Jai yet.
Suspicious WhatsApp messages about the plot to deliver dangerous drugs were found in one of the mobile phones seized from him, that is, the Samsung mobile phone with two SIM cards.
Then Exhibit P1, P2, P3 were all sent to the government laboratory for examination. So P1 was found to be 15 packets containing a total of 5.28 kilogrammes of a mixture, that is, in the form of 15 blocks, containing 4.43 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride. P2 was 12 packets containing a total of 4.22 kilogrammes of a mixture, in the form of 12 blocks, containing 3.414 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride. P3 was 12 packets containing a total of 4.22 kilogrammes of a mixture, in the form of 12 blocks, containing 3.5 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.
And the total amount of dangerous drugs seized from the defendant in this present case is a total of 13.72 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 11.344 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.
The estimated retail value of the seized heroin hydrochloride is HK$14,941,080.
The background and mitigation. According to the antecedent statement, the defendant was born in September 1978 and is now 46 years old. The defendant does not have a clear record. In fact, he has a string of records, but most of them are traffic or vehicle related, though he did have one of common assault and also one of resisting police officers, so a certain amount of violence. But he does not have any drug-related convictions.
And the defendant was educated up to Form 4. He was a car cleaner at the time of the arrest. He is single and lived with his mother prior to the arrest.
For the last offence committed by the defendant, he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 3 months. To be accurate, it is 3 months suspended for 18 months, and that was passed on 22 December 2021. In other words, the defendant committed the present offences during the suspension period.
Mr Charles Chiu, counsel for the defendant, gave this court some more information about the defendant. The defendant came to Hong Kong with his family in or about 1980. His father passed away and his two elder sisters left home without contact. The defendant lived with his mother prior to the arrest and the defendant was in breach of this 3 months’ suspended sentence when he committed the present offence.
The defendant earned about $15,000 per month as a car mechanic prior to his arrest. He was, however, made redundant in early 2021 and worked as a part-time car mechanic in different garages to earn around $15,000 a month. He agreed to deliver dangerous drugs to others to
make quick money as he was not earning enough to pay for household expenses. He had not received the reward of $20,000 promised by the time he was arrested by the police. The defendant is extremely remorseful for what he had done.
Counsel referred this court to the case of Herry Jane Yusuph and Lee Ming Ho and urged this court to impose concurrent sentences on the two charges and the suspended sentence when considering the issue of totality.
The defendant wrote to this court, giving a history of his own upbringing. The defendant told this court that his late father was unfaithful to his mother and had used violence against her. His father remained the same even after being sent to jail for wounding his mother with a knife. The defendant decided to start working early to earn money to support his mother. He made a mistake by thinking that he could make quick money and resulting in him committing these offences. His mother now lives in an old people’s home and he wished he could take care of his mother. And the defendant promised not to offend again and asked for leniency.
My consideration and reasons for sentence.
For the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, a person convicted on indictment is liable to life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million. Adopting the six-step approach in Herry Jane Yusuph, the first step is the quantity of the heroin involved was 11.344 kilogrammes falls into the band of 4,000 to 15,000 grammes with a starting point between 26 to 30 years. That is the case of Abdallah.
And the second step, the defendant was involved in the packaging and delivery of the dangerous drug. He is not a mere courier, but he is not in a managerial position either.
The third step, bearing in mind the role played by the defendant and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that a starting point of 29 years is appropriate.
The fourth step, although the defendant had a rather bad record, none of them are drug related. I will not enhance the starting point on account of the defendant’s previous convictions.
The fifth step is the mitigation. The only mitigating factor is the defendant’s timely plea and he is entitled to the full one-third discount.
So the last step is to see the totality. With the full one-third discount, the sentence for the two trafficking in dangerous drugs charges would be 19 years and 4 months. Having considered the totality principle, I will not order the activation of the 3 months’ suspended sentence.
So the actual sentence for the 1st count, trafficking in a dangerous drug, 19 years and 4 months. 2nd count, 19 years and 4 months. Both sentences to run concurrently, making a total of 19 years and 4 months.