HKSAR v. CHAN SIU LEUNG EDDY

DCCC 335/2025

[2025] HKDC 1746

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 335 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  Mr Chan pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.  Particulars are that he, on 14 October 2024, at the junction of Dundas Street and Canton Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely 5.67 grammes of a solid containing 4.59 grammes of cocaine.

Facts admitted by Mr Chan

3.  On 14 October 2024, at about 12:30 am, police set up a roadblock at the junction of Dundas Street and Canton Street, Mong Kok.  Later the same day at 12:55 am, Mr Chan driving a private car was stopped at the roadblock.  He was asked to get off with his personal property.

4.  Mr Chan got off taking with him a bag from the car.  Police searched the bag and found therein a resealable plastic bag containing 22 smaller resealable plastic bags containing a total of 5.67 grammes of a solid containing 4.59 grammes of cocaine, cash of HK$4,742 and RMB100 Yuan and a mobile phone with two SIM cards installed.

5.  Under arrest and caution, Mr Chan said the drug was cocaine and it was for his own consumption.

6.  In the subsequent cautioned VRI, Mr Chan said he bought the cocaine for HK$6,000 earlier and that the bag and the mobile phone belonged to him.

7.  The car driven by Mr Chan was rented at a monthly rent of HK$4,500.

8.  The street value of the cocaine was about HK$5,490.

Criminal record

9.  Mr Chan has a clear record.

Antecedents

10.  Mr Chan is aged 60 (almost 60 at the time of the offence), educated to Secondary 7 level, was a part-time decoration supervisor prior to arrest.  Mr Chan is divorced with two daughters aged 27 and 18.  Mr Chan lived alone in private housing in Tsuen Wan.

Mitigation

11.  Mr Ryan Sheung of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Chan.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

12.  Before remand, Mr Chan worked as a part-time supervisor for a decoration company, earning $18,000 per month.

13.  Around 2022, Mr Chan’s ex-wife divorced him and took custody of both daughters.

14.  In around 2023 to early 2024, Mr Chan was working as a project director of an aluminium engineering company.  He left the company in 2024.

15.  Mr Chan pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

16.  The starting point for mere possession of a quantity of dangerous drug which a bona fide user would normally have in his possession should be in the range of 12 to 18 months (HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC 261), subject to latent risk.

17.  Mr Sheung placed emphasis on the clear record of Mr Chan and recommended a starting point of 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment.

18.  As regards latent risk, Mr Sheung has the following submissions.  The cocaine seized was intended for Mr Chan’s self-consumption.  There was no plan for it to be shared with others.

19.  Mr Chan repeatedly maintained he had the drug for self-consumption.

20.  The amount of cocaine (4.59 grammes) was not high and not beyond the amount suitable for self-consumption, though it may take a few days for consumption.  It is acknowledged that the number of resealable plastic bags (22) in this case is not small.

21.  Mr Chan was living on his own.  He was driving home alone at about 12:30 am.  There was little chance for him to share the cocaine with others.

22.  There was no evidence to show any propensity for social or commercial supply.  It was submitted that there was no real risk of dissemination, or the risk was not high.

23.  Mr Sheung asked for a lenient sentence on behalf of Mr Chan such as would allow for the latter’s immediate release after the obtaining of the DATC report.

24.  Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Sheung after taking further instructions submitted that Mr Chan paid for his rented accommodation at a monthly rate of $5,200; that he shared the car rental with his part-time employer on a 50/50 basis ie Mr Chan needed to pay $2,250 a month for use of the car; that the drug he bought on this occasion would last him 7 to 10 days (equivalent to at least $18,000 per month on drug alone).

25.  When questioned how Mr Chan’s $18,000 per month earnings from a part-time job could support his living expense and drug addiction, Mr Sheung after taking more instructions submitted that when money level was low, Mr Chan would (a) spread out his drug intake so that his spending on drug would only be $10,000 odd a month and (b) sometimes he had extra income from selling old windows he helped to replace in his work.

26.  Although Mr Sheung seemed to concede at one point that Mr Chan’s income was not enough to cover his living expenses and drug addiction, he also submitted that Mr Chan had savings of more than $100,000 from money left when he withdrew from his own construction company in 2023 (para 12 of written mitigation) alongside his MPF.

27.  Mr Sheung submitted that even if latent risk is found to exist, the risk is low.

28.  After the below-mentioned report has been obtained, Mr Sheung submitted that the report has been explained to and agreed by Mr Chan with minor corrections.

29.  Finally, Mr Sheung asked for leniency on behalf of Mr Chan.

Report

30.  Because the offence of which Mr Chan stands convicted is possession of a dangerous drug, I called for a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Suitability Report.

31.  The report that came back says that Mr Chan is not a drug dependent and he is therefore considered not suitable for admission to a DATC.

Sentence

32.  Given Mr Chan’s clear record, I will adopt 12 months’ imprisonment as his starting point of sentence.

33.  Mr Chan did not have a long-term stable job; he had only a part-time job.  As such, his income could not be described as being stable.  Yet, he had recurring expenses which were more than his average income.  The number of resealable plastic bags being 22 made it easier for Mr Chan to re-distribute some of them should he so choose.  On the other hand, Mr Chan has no trafficking conviction.  Weighed in the round, the latent risk of his parting with some of the drug for gain though not substantial could not be ignored.

34.  In the premises, I will enhance the starting point by 3 months only to take account of the latent risk involved.

35.  Mr Chan pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  I can see no other mitigating factors of substance to warrant another sentence reduction.

(Mr Chan, please stand)

36.  The sentence is 10 months’ imprisonment.