HKSAR v. MA SHU KEUNG

HCCC 85/2017

[2019] HKCFI 958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 85 OF 2017

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

I will now deal with the case of HCCC85/2017, Ma Shu‑keung. Please stand.

Ma Shu‑keung had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of Trafficking in a dangerous drug, which is the same count as for the defendant in HCCC84/2017, Chan Chi‑yeung, the 1st Count. Namely, 24.42 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 23.98 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 18.31 grammes of a mixture containing 14.43 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

The facts which Ma admitted to was that on 22 August, he was at the door of Unit A, Shui Wo Street, Kwun Tong and when he pressed the bell and the door was opened by Chan Chi-yeung in the other case, the police then rushed into the flat behind him.

He agreed that there were two CCTV cameras installed outside the flat and they were connected to a monitor inside the flat. He admitted that all the drugs that were found inside the unit were openly displayed, including two ‘Ice’ pots, one electronic scale, three lighters and a safe containing, or an open cash box containing also dangerous drugs.

He agreed that Chan Chi‑yeung was, at the time, the registered tenant of the flat. In his first video-recorded interview under caution, the defendant claimed that he came to the flat to borrow money. He claimed that all the drugs belonged to Chan Chi‑yeung and that Chan would supply him with dangerous drugs upon payment.

In his second video-recorded interview he did a complete U‑turn and admitted that all the dangerous drugs found in the flat were his. He had rented the flat from Chan Chi‑yeung and he sold ‘Ice’ and heroin to drug addicts in the flat. He also admitted that the retail value of the dangerous drugs found in the flat was around HK$24,000.

Ma has a criminal record, but not as poor as the one of Chan Chi‑yeung. He had 11 previous convictions, four to do with dangerous drugs. And one of those four convictions was for Conspiracy to Traffic in Dangerous Drugs in 2002.

There is nothing remarkable about his background. Apart from the fact that after his plea of guilty, his sentencing was adjourned and during this time, he gave evidence for Chan Chi‑yeung in his trial before the jury. And he repeated the fact that, he told the jury that all the drugs were his and that it had nothing to do with Chan Chi‑yeung.

But he went further in his evidence, on oath, before the jury. He not only claimed the drugs were his, he gave evidence about police brutality, that the police upon entering the flat had used a truncheon to hit Chan Chi‑yeung, and that was never substantiated by any other evidence. Particularly as I would note, that both Ma and Chan and others arrested in the flat were brought before the duty officer. When the duty officer asked if there were any complaints or requests, none were made. And by the jury’s verdict, it is plain that the jury did not believe the evidence of Ma.

When counsel, on his behalf, Mr Chan Chung was mitigating, I expressed to him that I am considering the fact whether his client is entitled to the full one-third discount for his plea of guilty, due to the fact that the one-third discount, it is, in the public interests to encourage pleas to save the court’s time and also it is an indication of the remorse of a particular defendant.

But in this case, Ma chose to give evidence, on oath, on behalf of his co-accused, Chan Chi‑yeung and surely, it is a strong indication of his lack of full remorse and also he did waste the court’s time. And as I have noted, not only did he merely say that the drugs were his, he went on making false allegations of violence against the police.

So considering all this, I am satisfied that Ma should not get the full one-third discount.

As in the case of the other defendant, Chan Chi‑yeung, I would adopt the same starting point on this count of 9 years’ imprisonment.

I would take 25 per cent off the nine years and sentence him to 6 years and 9 months. So he goes to prison for 6 years and 9 months.