HKSAR v. CHIM KA MING

HCCC 154/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 154 OF 2015

(ARISING FROM FLCC NO 514 OF 2014)

_______________

_______________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Late in the evening on 4 October 2014, the defendant was intercepted by customs officers when he entered Hong Kong from Mainland China. Upon a search of a rucksack he was carrying, the officers found inside a quantity of the dangerous drug commonly known as ICE. He was arrested and cautioned and immediately admitted that he was bringing the drugs into Hong Kong for a friend. He later elaborated that his friend was “Ah Chuen” who gave him the drugs at Huanggang in Shenzhen and told him to bring them into Hong Kong for delivery to someone in Sham Shui Po. He was promised a reward of $2,800 for the delivery of which $1,500 had been paid to him in the Mainland and the balance was to be paid when the drugs were delivered.

2.  The estimated street value of the drugs involved was $138,337.50.

3.  At the earliest opportunity the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug with respect to the quantity of drugs involved and for that he is entitled to a one-third discount from the sentence that would normally be imposed upon him after trial. 

4.  The sentencing tariffs for a person convicted of trafficking of ICE were first fixed in AG v Ching Kwok-hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 but later revised on 9 June 2014 in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691.  The quantity of drugs involved in this case is 294.2 grammes which falls within the band between 70 and 300 grammes where the sentence should range from 11 to 15 years’ imprisonment.  The quantity of drugs in this case is slightly short of the ceiling quantity in this band. 

5.  The transcending of jurisdictional boundaries in the trade of drugs is an aggravating factor that will normally attract an enhancement on the starting point.  In this case the starting point requires enhancement because of the aggravating factor of the importation of the drugs.

6.  The defendant is 26 years of age.  He has a prior criminal record for an offence of theft which appears to be relatively minor as he was dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court and sentenced to community service. Accordingly, I have disregarded it for the purposes of sentencing in this case.  

7.  The defendant was born in Hong Kong and holds a Hong Kong identity card but claimed at the time of his arrest that he was living in the Mainland with his grandmother and wife.  He comes from a broken home. His parents never married and he was cared for by others.  As a consequence he only attained basic education but was able to establish a career in the catering industry.  He tried to move into the computer business but that was not successful and he returned back to catering and worked as a waiter.  He got into financial difficulties and was made a bankrupt in 2012.  He got married in 2013 but as a result of his involvement in this case his wife has since divorced him.  He admitted that he regularly used ICE and has an addiction.  It was explained on his behalf that he got involved in this case due to the influence of another person and the lure of making money. 

8.  I have borne in mind his background, age and circumstances and have decided that all things considered that a starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment should be adopted in this case.  I have tried to be as lenient as I can and have also factored into the starting point that the drugs were imported into Hong Kong. 

9.  Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, there are no other identifiable mitigating factors that justify a reduction of his sentence.  As I have already indicated, I adopt a starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment which I reduce by one‑third for the defendant’s plea of guilty to 10 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.