HKSAR v. CHU CHUN KIT

HCCC 46/2023

[2023] HKCFI 2807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 46 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

_______________________________________

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

_______________________________________

COURT: The defendant, Chu Chun-kit, was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.

Summary of Facts

The facts admitted by the defendant disclosed that at all material times, he rented a private car with registration number WS6631. On 29 September 2021, the said car was seen parked on On Muk Street in Sha Tin by police officers who laid ambush nearby during an anti-dangerous drug operation with the defendant sitting on the driver’s seat. The police intercepted the defendant. The police found on the driver’s seat near the gearbox a pile of $500 notes and two to three transparent resealable bags placed next to some used tissue papers.

These transparent bags were later found to contain 16 bags containing 48.96 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 46.83 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, call it ‘Ice’, with a market value of about $39,951.

The defendant threw the used tissue and the packets of dangerous drug out of the window and tried to run away when the police revealed their police identity but he was subdued and the police seized the tissue and the dangerous drug from the road. A total sum of $43,000 consisting of 80 $500 notes, 20 $100 notes and one $1,000 note were found next to the driver’s seat.

The defendant was arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug. Before the magistrate, the defendant admitted that he unlawfully trafficked the ‘Ice’ in question at the material time.

Antecedent and Mitigation

According to the antecedents statement, the defendant was born in January 1990, so he is now 33 years of age. He is single and studied up to Form 5 level. He had a previous conviction of common assault for which he was put on probation for 18 months. He had worked as an apprentice, a transportation worker and a salesperson.

Mr Adonis Cheung, counsel for the defendant, gave more background about the defendant. The defendant lived with his parents and younger sister before the offence. He was educated up to Form 5 level. He worked as a salesperson earning $10,000 a month. Due to the prolonged social events in 2019 and the COVID pandemic thereafter, the defendant was not able to get sufficient work and income. In financial need, he helped a friend to traffic dangerous drugs. He was promised $2,500 per day for the work. He admitted his wrongdoing upon arrest.

Mr Cheung referred to the defendant’s previous conviction of common assault in 2006 and submitted that the defendant was 16 at the time of that conviction. He asked this Court to treat the defendant as a first offender.

Mr Cheung referred to the case of Tam Yi Chun and submitted that on an arithmetical approach, the starting point is around 9 years and 5 months and 2 weeks. Mr Cheung also emphasised the fact that defendant had been co-operative and pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity.

My Consideration for the Sentence

Offences involving dangerous drugs are serious, particularly when the trafficking of dangerous drugs is involved. A person convicted on indictment of this offence is liable to a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for life. Regarding the submission that the defendant was extremely co-operative, I must point out that apart from pleading guilty at the committal stage, I do not really see evidence of the defendant being co-operative, particularly when he threw the dangerous drugs outside the car and had to be subdued by the police when he tried to run away. Nevertheless, as the defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity, I will still give him the full one-third discount.

So adopting the six-step approach in the case of Herry Jane Yusuph:

(1)  The quantity of ‘Ice’ involved here is 46.83 grammes. So according to the case of Tam Yi Chun, this quantity falls under the bracket of between 10 to 70 grammes with a starting point between 7 to 11 years.

(2)  The defendant acted as a packer and courier, so his role, while still important, is nowhere near that of a mastermind or organiser.

(3)  Having considered the circumstances of the offence and the defendant’s role, I am of the view that a notional after trial starting point of 9 years and 6 months is appropriate.

(4)  There are no aggravating factors to enhance this starting point. I will not take into account the defendant’s common assault conviction for the purpose of sentence.

(5)  The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount.

(6)  With the discount the sentence is one of 6 years and 4 months and I am of the view that this is a fair and just sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant, the offender.

So the actual sentence for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.