HKSAR v. POON CHI KEUNG

DCCC417/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 417 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

 --------------------------

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, and this deals with a quantity of 5.70 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”.

2.  Facts of the case show that the police conducted an anti-crime operation in Kwai Ching House in Kwai Chung on 23 February 2011.  He was stopped by the police, and a body search was conducted.  From the defendant’s trouser pocket one transparent plastic bag containing eight plastic bags of what was then suspected to be Ice was discovered.  At that stage the defendant said the Ice was for his own consumption.

3.  A house search was conducted at the premises where the defendant had been.  In there a certain digital scale was found and two transparent plastic bags containing 127 empty plastic bags were found.

4.  There was a video-recorded interview.  The defendant said he bought eight packets of Ice at $2,000 to $3,000 at Langham Place in Mong Kok.  He had been contacted by a person “Ah Leung” and made prior arrangements before going to Mong Kok to buy the dangerous drugs.  He had consumed drugs for about one to two years.  The drug was analysed by the Government Chemist and found to be a total of 5.97 grammes of a solid containing 5.7 grammes of Ice.

5.  The defendant has a criminal record.  In 2001 he was placed on probation for an unlawful sexual intercourse.  Then, in 2010, he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 4 months for various public order and triad society offences. 

6.  The defendant’s antecedents show he has been working as a transportation worker and, on his own admission, was an abuser of the drug Ice.  In mitigation it was being said that the defendant, on arrest, was cooperative with the police.  He had assisted them, made a statement.  In terms of his personal background, it was said he was from a broken family.  He had become a poor student and had eventually succumbed to the drug. 

7.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to trafficking in that drug.  There are clear guidelines before the court as to how the court should proceed in sentencing a person found to be trafficking in this drug. For trafficking in an amount up to 10 grammes the sentence is between 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant has trafficked in an amount slightly under 6 grammes so finds himself somewhere towards the middle of that sentencing range, which should put him in the middle of the sentencing range of 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment. 

8.  The defendant, as I say, does not have any particularly aggravating factors in this offence or strong mitigating factors, so there seems to me to be little reason in this case to part from the sentencing guideline, which would place his sentencing in the middle of that range of between 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment.  For that reason I will take a starting point at the middle of that range which would be 60 months’ imprisonment.  He is entitled to a full discount of one-third from that sentence, which would lead to a final sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment. 

9.  I consider that to be the appropriate sentence, and that is the sentence I will impose, 40 months' imprisonment.