HKSAR v. PANG HO YIN

DCCC 200/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 200 OF 2009

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

Reasons for sentence

________________________

1. The defendant is convicted of one count of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug.[1] He has pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a dangerous drug involving 0.19 g of ‘ice’ [2].  One count of possession of an imitation firearm [3] and another count of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place [4]. 

2. The defendant was intercepted by a team of plain-clothes police officers at about 1 a.m., on 15/8/08, outside No. 18, Hoi Fai Road, Mong Kok. The defendant was sitting at the driver seat of a private car (GJ 9931). One packet of ‘ice’ was found from the right front pocket of his jeans. The officers searched his car and found an air pistol underneath the carpet of the driver’s seat. A golf club was found inside the boot of the car. The defendant admitted under caution that he bought the packet of ‘ice’ for his own consumption for $300. He also admitted that he had the air pistol with him to scare off enemies. In a later video interview, he further admitted that he purchased ‘ice’ from ‘Kong Chai’ in Mainland China. ‘Kong Chai’ arranged the ‘ice’ to be brought across the border to Hong Kong for him. He would pick it up at the Lok Ma Chau control point. Each time it was about half ounce and cost $6,000. He then resold the drug in Tin Shui Wai and Tun Mun area. The golf club was for self-defence.

3. The defendant is 33. He has 14 previous convictions. Mostly connected with dangerous drugs. He had been to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre for three times. He has three children. He attained Form 3 standard. He is now cohabiting with his girl friend at Tin Yan Estate. He claimed to be an addict at the time of the offence. His mother is 59. She has high blood pressure and diabetes. These conditions are under control by medication.

4. For the conspiracy charge, the total amount of ‘ice’ involved is uncertain. According s.39 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug should be liable to the penalty prescribed for trafficking in a dangerous drug.

5. The defendant only admitted in the video that he bought half an ounce [5] of ‘ice’ from ‘Kong Chai’ each time. There was no admission as to the frequency of these trafficking activities. According to his admission, this had been carrying on for about a year.  While I am sure the defendant must have purchased ‘ice’ more than once, it may not be fair to speculate the actual number of purchases and used that as the factual basis for sentencing. In fact, Mr. De Bonville, counsel on fiat, rightly points out that there is no information as to the concentration of the ‘ice’ in question.

6. However, given the admission, I am sure the defendant must have trafficked in a substantial quantity of ice as he described in the video interview.

7. I have considered the background of the defendant. There is no reason to be lenient. I do bear in mind that the 1^st charge could not have been detected but for the full disclosure by the defendant in the video interview. Having considered the criminality of the 1^st charge and the analysis above, I sentence the defendant to 5 years imprisonment.

8. For the 2^nd charge of possession of 0.19 gram of ‘ice’, I take 12 months as the starting point. Given the small quantity, I do not enhance the sentence for latent risk. I give one-third discount for the plea. I sentence the defendant to 8 months imprisonment.

9. For the 3^rd charge of possession of an imitation firearm, I take 15 months as the starting point. I give one-third discount for the plea. I sentence the defendant to 10 months imprisonment.

10. For the 4^th charge of possession of an offensive weapon, I take 9 months as the starting point. I give one-third discount for the plea. I sentence the defendant to 6 months imprisonment.

11. Bearing in mind the nature of the offences, I order that the sentences of the 3^rd and 4^th charge to run concurrently but consecutive to that of the 2^nd charge. The total is 18 months imprisonment.

12.  Having considered the totality principle, I order these 18 months to run consecutive to the 1^st charge which is a distinct and separate offence. The defendant has to serve a total of six and a half years imprisonment.

[1] The 1^st  charge, contrary to s.4 (1) (a), (3) and of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. and s. 159A of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

[2] Methamphetamine hydrochloride, subject matter of the 2^nd  charge, contrary to s.8 (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

[3] The 3^rd  charge, contrary to s.20 (1) of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238.

[4] The 4^th  charge, contrary to s.33 (1) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245.

[5]I take judicial notice that this is about 14 grams.