HKSAR v. SEE CHAK-FOON

HCCC 8/2019

[2019] HKCFI 1524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 8 OF 2019

____________

____________

____________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

____________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.  The defendant was intercepted by police officers outside Room 4B, 1^st Floor, Chi Cheong Building, Nos 2-4E Tee On Street Kwun Tong, Kowloon when he was seen acting furtively in the corridor upon noticing the police officers.  A search was conducted and he was found in possession of one plastic bag wrapped by one piece of tissue paper containing of 27.6 grammes of the crystalline solid containing 26.5 grammes of methamphetamine and hydrochloride “E1” which was seized from near the right ankle of the pair of jeans the defendant was wearing.  (“Charge 1”)

3.  Under caution, the defendant said that the “ice” belonged to him and he intended to sell it to the customer.

4.  The police then conducted another search inside Room 4B and in the found 22 plastic bags containing a total of 889 grammes of the crystalline solid containing 552 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“E2”), one electronic scale and 6 piles of empty resealable plastic bag.  (“Charge 2”)

5.  The defendant was then arrested and cautioned under which he confessed that he borrowed the room from a friend to hide the ice and he was going to sell the ice to customers and his friend did not know about the dangerous drugs.

6.  In a subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, the defendant further admitted that: -

(a) he purchased all the dangerous drugs seized at $170,000 $280,000 from a man called “Ah Ming” whom he met at Kwun Tong methadone Centre;

(b) he was going to take E1 to sell to a man called Ah Gau for $9,000;

(c) he was going to sell E1 and E2 and earn $300,000 and

(d) he used that the electronic scale seized from the room to weight the drugs he repackaged into smaller packets to sell to customers.

7.  The defendant now admits that he was in possession of all the drugs seized for purpose of trafficking.  Upon analysis, the total drugs in respect of the two charges were found to be 916.6 grammes of crystalline solid containing 878.5 grammes of ice with a market value of $523,378

8.  The defendant is now aged 61.  He was brought before the court in no less than 15 previous occasions from 1983 to 2017, with 21 convictions and in particular, 4 similar trafficking in dangerous drugs records and one record of divan keeping and many other possession of dangerous records including his last conviction in 2017 for which he was sentenced to the DATC by the Magistrate.

9.  By way of mitigation, his counsel Mr Chu told me that the defendant is married with two sons.  His wife is 49 years old and is a Thai woman.  His elder son is 25 years old but he had a stroke at the tender age of 3 and as a result, he suffered brain injuries and was paralyzed in both his right upper and lower limbs and needs to be taken care by the others for living.  His younger son aged 20 is still a student sitting for DSE examination in his 2^nd attempt.  He used to work as a hawker earning a monthly income of around $12,000 to $20,000 between 1979 and 2008.  He was unemployed at the time of arrest.  He committed the present offence because of his drug habits as well as his enormous financial burden so he succumbed to the temptation of earning quick money.  Mr Chu also told me that despite of what the defendant had told the police, the defendant had no money to buy the drugs so he was only used by Ah Ming, the dealer, to distribute the drugs for him so that he could earn commission after successfully selling the drugs.

10.  In sentencing the defendant, I have considered his guilty plea, the mitigation forwarded by his counsel, and the existing tariff for trafficking in ‘Ice’.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs is of course a serious offence with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of HK$5,000,000.  Those who are convicted of this offence will expect no mercy from the court.  The court can never accept economic reasons for committing crimes.  And the Court of Appeal had repeatedly stated that family circumstances virtually plays no part in the mitigation in serious offences such as drug trafficking.  There are two separate charges but the two charges are closely connected in terms of time and place as well as the nature of the drugs involved.  In fact, the drugs of the two charges belonged to the same batch that the defendant obtained from Ah Ming according to his admission.  It is only just therefore that I shall pass a global sentence in respect of both charges and order the sentences to run concurrently[1].  For trafficking in over 600 grammes of ‘Ice’, the same tariff as prescribed in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 of those quantities of heroin, which is between 600 to 1,200 grammes, the tariff is one between 20 to 23 years.  The narcotics in the present case, being 916.6 grammes of ‘Ice’, I adopt the starting point of 21 years and 6 months.  Also, the defendant being a repeated offender in drug trafficking, I shall enhance the starting point by a further 9 months to 22 years and 3 months.

11.  The defendant indicated guilty plea as early as at the committal proceedings.  He is therefore entitled to a full one third discount and is sentenced to 14 years and 10 months for each charge.  The sentence on each charge is to run concurrently with each other.