HKSAR v. KEUNG CHUN YIP

DCCC 96/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 96 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Keung Chun-yip, pleaded guilty before me to one count of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”.

2.  At around 5 pm on 20 November 2013, a team of police officers entered the defendant’s premises with a search warrant.  The defendant was then in his bedroom.  The police officers searched the bedroom of the defendant and found:

(1)one box containing seven transparent resealable plastic bags containing suspected dangerous drugs. The suspected dangerous drugs were then stuck on the window frame of the bedroom. The suspected dangerous drugs were later examined and were found to contain a total of 4.27 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 4.23 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride; and

(2)one coin bag containing one electronic scale and 44 empty transparent resealable plastic bags being placed inside a wardrobe.

3.  The defendant was then arrested and cautioned for “trafficking in a dangerous drug”. Under caution, the defendant stated that all the “Ice” belonged to him and it had nothing to do with his family.  He intended to sell the “Ice” to others to earn some money, and his family had no knowledge of it.

4.  The estimated street value of all the drugs seized was about $2,728.53.

5.  At the material time, the defendant possessed all the drugs seized for the purpose of trafficking.

6.  The criminal record of the defendant shows that he had been brought to court on 13 previous occasions.  He had a total of 15 convictions recorded against him, of which five were related to dangerous drugs.

7.  The antecedents statement of the defendant shows that he is now 36 years old.  Locally born, he received education up to Primary 6 level.  He was addicted to cannabis since 1996.  He was also addicted to “Ice” since 1998.  He has a son and a daughter and he lives with his mother and his children in a public housing unit in Aberdeen.

8.  Mr Lee in mitigation told me that the defendant worked as a scaffolder on a casual basis and he makes around $5,000 a month.  He was a drug addict at the time of his arrest.  He is now serving a DATC order which was made on 10 December 2013.  Mr Lee told me that the defendant committed the offence as he wanted to make some money.  He bought the drugs in question earlier that day and intended to sell the drugs to make some money.  He committed the offence because of his low income and his drug addiction.

9.  The defendant admitted the offence at the first available opportunity, which is a sign of his remorse.  Mr Lee submitted that the defendant has no trafficking conviction.  Mr Lee told me that the defendant intends to turn a new leaf, and by the time the defendant finishes serving his sentence for the present case he will be able to kick off his drug addiction.

10.  The son and daughter of the defendant are now being taken care of by the defendant’s mother. Mr Lee draws my attention to a mitigation letter written by a priest.  In the mitigation letter the priest mentions the hardship now being faced by the defendant’s mother and his children.  He pleads for a lenient sentence from the court. 

11.  Mr Lee also draws my attention to the authority Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125.  The Court of Appeal indicates that for trafficking up to 10 grammes of “Ice”, a starting point in the region of 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.  Mr Lee asked me to take into consideration all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf and pass a lenient sentence on the defendant.

12.  In sentencing the defendant I have borne in mind the facts of this case, the nature of the dangerous drugs in question, the quantity, and the guidelines as set down by the Court of Appeal in the authority Ching Kwok Hung.

13.  This case concerns 4.23 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “Ice”. Applying the tariffs as set down in Ching’s case, a starting point of 4½ years’ imprisonment is appropriate.  The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence.  He is entitled to the customary one‑third reduction.  That would bring his sentence down to 3 years’ imprisonment.

14.  I am sympathetic to the hardship faced by the defendant’s mother and his children, but the defendant should really have thought about the welfare of his family members before he committed the offence.

15.  Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant, I can see no other mitigating factor that can further reduce the sentence I am going to impose.

16.  For the reasons given, for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, I sentence the defendant to 3 years’ imprisonment.