HKSAR v. SUEN CHICK SHING

DCCC1362/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1362 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The Charge and the Facts

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.  The offence was disclosed when the police noticed the Defendant acting suspiciously in Yaumatei in the afternoon of 8 October 2011. Upon search, the police found a plastic bag being attached to the Defendant’s lower leg by way of rubber bands. Inside the bag, the drug particularized in the charge was found contained in 40 packets. Under caution at the scene and when interviewed by way of video-recording later, the Defendant admitted that he was taking the drug to Yung Shue Tau Park for a total reward of HK$400.

Mitigation

3.  The Defendant is aged 63. He is married and was living with his wife at the time of his arrest. The Defendant’s two children are living apart and both are restaurant workers. The Defendant was educated up to primary level. It was said that because of his limited education, he could only work as a car repairer and a hawker at times.

4.  At the time of the offence, the Defendant was receiving public assistance of about HK$2,600 per month. That was not enough for his living and he therefore committed the present offence.

5.  The Defendant has been before the court on 40 previous occasions with 56 convictions. 11 of those were “possession of a dangerous drug” and 5 were “trafficking in a dangerous drug”. Others were mainly “burglary”, “robbery”, “handling stolen goods” and “theft”. His most recent “trafficking” conviction was in October 2009 in respect of which he was sentenced to a total term of 16 months’ imprisonment. As was summarized by Mr. Yuen acting for the Defendant, he has spent almost half of his past years in prison. 

6.  In mitigation, Mr. Yuen submitted that the Defendant felt sorry to his wife who is suffering from a mental illness. He is determined to take care of her after his release. It was also said that the Defendant is truly remorseful. He made full admissions at the time of arrest and he pleaded guilty at an early stage. Further, given the Defendant’s age, it was said that the chance of his re-offending would be low.

Sentencing Considerations

7.  In sentencing, I take into account all the relevant facts and all that was said in mitigation on behalf of the Defendant.

8.  In R v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in heroin. For trafficking up to 10 grammes of narcotic, a term of imprisonment of between 2 to 5 years is called for. In the present case, the narcotic involved was 5.83 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. For this quantity and in view of the facts of the case, I consider a starting point of 39 months to be appropriate.

The Sentence

9.  The greatest mitigation in this case is the Defendant’s plea. He is going to get a one-third reduction for that.  Other than the plea, I do not see any other matter which would warrant any additional reduction in sentence. 

10.  39 months reduced by one-third is 26 months’ imprisonment. The Defendant is therefore to serve a term of 26 months for this charge.