HKSAR v. YUNG TAK CHUN

DCCC 1015/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1015 OF 2011

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

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to s.4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous drugs Ordinance, Cap.134. The defendant was 16 at the time of his commission of the offence, 17 at the time of sentence. He admitted to trafficking in 7.14g of a solid containing 6.25g of cocaine.

Facts

2.  A Police officer patrolling the vicinity found packets of dangerous drugs inside a fire hose wheel box located at the staircase near Room 2611 of Ching Wo House, Tsz Ching Estate, Tsz Wan Shan at around 6:20pm on 12 July 2011.

3.  An ambush operation was initiated and the defendant was seen acting furtively when he approached the fire hose wheel box at 7:42pm. The defendant took out some of the plastic bags and put them into his pants’ pockets.

4.  One of the hiding Police officers shouted for the defendant to stop which caused him to flee. The defendant was however immediately intercepted and searched. When the dangerous drugs found on his were shown to the defendant, he admitted that he was delivering them to someone.

5.  The fire hose wheel box was then searched again and the other plastic bags with dangerous drugs inside were shown to the defendant who admitted that he intended to deliver those to other people as well.

6.  The defendant was arrested and admitted under caution that he was delivering the drugs to make some money. In a subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant further admitted that the substance he was going to deliver was cocaine, that he himself was a cocaine addict, that he bought the cocaine from someone named “Ah Kit” in Mongkok for $3,000 at noon earlier that day, that he brought the cocaine back to the fire hose wheel box to store them inside, that at about 7pm a female called him and asked to buy some cocaine, that he then took 2 bags of cocaine from the fire hose wheel box and intending to sell them to the female for $800.

Previous convictions

7.  The defendant has one similar conviction of trafficking in dangerous drugs, for which he was sentenced to the Rehabilitation Centre in October 2009 at Kowloon City Magistracy.

8.  I was told in mitigation by Ms. Wong that the defendant was last released from the Rehabilitation Centre in December 2010, about 7 months before his commission of the present offence.

Mitigation

9.  Although trafficking in dangerous drugs is an excepted offence, given the relatively young age of the defendant, I ordered a background report to be prepared on him prior to sentencing.

10.  The report unfortunately tells a disheartening story of how the defendant had been influenced by his peers into joining the triad society and into taking drugs like ketamine and cocaine. The defendant told the probation officer that he committed the present offence out of greed and that he had spent all the ill gotten money on pleasure seeking, buying clothes and on sustaining his drug addiction. The defendant would spend around $2,000 to $3,000 each week on cocaine. He was using about 2 to 3 times per week.

Sentencing tariffs

11.  In relation to the sentencing tariffs for trafficking in cocaine, the cases of R v Lau Tak-ming and Ors [1990] 2 HKLR 370 and Attorney General v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342 apply. For narcotic contents of up to 10g, the proper starting point is between 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment. In our present case, at 6.25g, the starting point should be slightly more than 46 months’ imprisonment.

Sentence

12.  Although the defendant is only 17, he does not fall into the ‘extreme youth’ category and as such his age is not a mitigating factor per se. The defendant is not of clear record. He did however cooperate with the Police and had pleaded guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity. I will grant him a discount of around 1 month from the initial 46 months starting point on that basis.

13.  Having heard from Ms. Wong  for the defendant in mitigation, I find that there is nothing further that would allow me to depart from the sentencing tariffs.

14.  I will therefore adopt a starting point of 45 months’ imprisonment, reducing it by one third in recognition of the defendant’s plea of guilty and sentence the defendant to 30 months’ imprisonment.