HKSAR v. HUI CHIN PANG

DCCC 1148/2021

[2022] HKDC 1388

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1148 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to a single charge of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, Laws of Hong Kong.

Summary of facts

2.  At around 12:36 a.m. on 15 August 2021, patrolling police officer(s)  saw the Defendant and another male standing together outside No. 8 Ashley Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon. The officer(s)  heard the Defendant expressing concern that there were police officers. In view of the Defendant’s suspicious behaviour, the officer(s)  intercepted him.

3.  A search was conducted on the Defendant, a piece of paper wrapping two transparent re-sealable plastic bags was found underneath the pair of shorts he was wearing. The two transparent re-sealable plastic bags respectively contained the following items:

(i)  40 plastic bags containing a total of 6.05 g of a solid containing 5.14 g of cocaine ("E1"); and

(ii)  20 plastic bags containing a total of 12.2 g of a solid containing 10.2 g of cocaine ("E2").

4.  The Defendant was then arrested for "trafficking in dangerous drugs". Under caution, the Defendant admitted that E1-2 were "Coke" and he conveyed the drugs for other people as he owed them money. After the plastic bags containing E1-2 were counted, the Defendant stated under caution that he knew that E1-2 were cocaine, but he did not know the number of plastic bags until then.

5.  The Government Chemist subsequently confirmed the content of E1-2 (i.e. a total of 18.25 g of a solid containing 15.34 g of cocaine).

6.  The estimated street value of E1-2 was HK$30,751.25.

7.  At the material times, the Defendant possessed E1-2 for the purpose of trafficking.

Background and Mitigation

8.  The Defendant is single and has a clear record.

9.  He was born in China and is now 26 years old. He came to Hong Kong at the age of about 6 and was educated up to Form 1 only. His parents divorced when he was about 17 and he started living with his grandmother since.

10.  The Defendant had previously worked in a hair salon but under the influence of dubious peers, he started to abuse cocaine and quit his job. Due to his long-term unemployment and the need to foot his bill for drug, he owed debts to friends and family members to the tune of some HK$300,000. As his friends had pressed hard for repayment, he finally succumbed and agreed to deliver the drugs in question for a reward of about HK$50 per packet.

11.  In his mitigation letter, he expressed his remorse for committing the offence and felt indebted to his family members for the supports they rendered. He also promised to turn a new leaf in his life and be a responsible son and citizen in future.  

Sentencing considerations

12.  The Defence has rightly pointed out that the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in heroine are applicable to cocaine, AG v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342. It follows that trafficking in between 10 and 50 grammes of cocaine will attract a sentence of between 5 and 8 years’ imprisonment after trial, R v Lau Tak Ming & Ors [1990] 2 HKLR 370.

13.  According to HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKC 458, such sentencing guidelines are based on the role of a courier or storekeeper, which is considered less culpable. Having carefully considered the circumstances of the case and the admissions the Defendant made at the scene, I accept that he was merely acting as a courier at the time and adopt the guidelines accordingly. By way of mathematical calculation, trafficking in 15.34 g of cocaine will attract a starting point of 64.8 months’ imprisonment.

14.  While I do not find anything in the personal circumstances of the Defendant that justifies a reduction in sentence, there is no aggravating factors in the case either.

15.  Taking into account the circumstances of the case and the Defendant’s clear record, I take 63 months as the starting point and reduce the same by 1/3 to 3 years and 6 months to reflect his timely plea of guilty.

Sentence

16.  The Defendant is sentenced to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for the offence.