HKSAR v. HO SIU LOI

DCCC 535/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 535 OF 2012

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved is methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as "ICE").

2. About 11:30 pm on 11 April 2012, PC 10083 intercepted the defendant for enquiries on the 3^rd Floor of a building situated at No.186 Yu Chau Street, Sham Shui Po.  Upon search, a transparent resealable plastic bag which contained 5.96 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 5.40 grammes of ICE was found in the defentant's right front trouser pocket.

3. Under caution, the defendant admitted that the substance found on him was ICE and that it was for his own consumption.  He also admitted that upon request of his friends, he would let them try the ICE. In his Record of Interview, the defendant admitted that about 9:00 pm on 11 April 2012, he bought the ICE found on him from a male called Ah Wah at Nam Cheong Street Park at $2,500.  At the time of his arrest, he was on his way to find a friend in that building for a chat.

4. The defendant is now 32 and has 17 conviction records, out of which 2 are related to drug trafficking and 8 are related to "simple possession".  He was last sentenced to 47 months' imprisonment in March 2009 for drug trafficking.  He was released in August 2011.

5. Defence counsel Ms. CHEUNG informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his parents.  He was unemployed prior to the present offence.  He receives social welfare in the sum of $3,150 per month. Ms. CHEUNG submitted that in the defendant's Record of Interview, he admitted that he takes ICE twice a day amounting to a total of 1 gramme.  He also admitted that one-third of the ICE found (i.e. 1.8 grammes) was for his own-consumption (a fact which is not challenged by the Prosecution).

6. I was told that the defendant lives on welfare in sum of $3,150 per month.  Yet, he had spent $2,500 (almost 80% of his monthly income) on drugs.  Strangely enough, he would only consume about one-third of the ICE he purchased and would treat his friends to the rest.  But for the Prosecution's concession, I would reject the defendant's version without the slightest hesitation.

7. A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" is a serious crime and that drug traffickers would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment.

8. The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing tariffs for trafficking in ICE (see A-G v CHING Kwok-hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125).  For up to 10 grammes of ICE, the sentence ranges from 3 to 7 years' imprisonment.

9. The defendant is no stranger to drug-related offences.  He has 2 conviction records of "Trafficking" and numerous records of "simple possession".  In the present case, he trafficked in a total of 5.40 grammes of ICE.  I adopt a starting point is 6 years' imprisonment.  The usual one-third discount is given for his guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 4 years.  I will further reduce the sentence to 3.5 years to reflect the quantity which he claimed was for self-consumption.  Apart from these 2 reasons, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further discount.  The sentence I pass is 3.5 years' imprisonment.