HKSAR v. YUEN CHING KUEN

DCCC740/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 740 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant enters a plea of guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, preferred against him under section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

Facts

2.  The facts to which the defendant agrees are as follows. 

3.  About a week before the date of offence, the defendant became acquainted with a person called Ah Ming in a basketball court.  Later, Ah Ming asked the defendant whether he would deliver drugs for him for a reward.  The defendant replied in the affirmative.

4.  In the early morning of the day of offence, the defendant met Ah Ming and obtained from him a packet of “Ice”, with instructions to deliver it to a bus terminal in Shun Tin Estate at about 5 pm. 

5.  When the defendant left home that afternoon to fulfil his drug-delivery mission, a team of police officers confronted him outside his flat.  They found in his possession what was later confirmed to be 3.44 grammes of a crystalline solid with 3.35 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride in it. 

6.  Under caution, the defendant admitted helping Ah Ming deliver the drug for a reward of $300.

Conviction

7.  The court finds the defendant guilty as charged.

8.  The defendant has had seven records before his current conviction, two of them drug-related, and one for trafficking in a dangerous drug, for which he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.

Mitigation

9.  In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration.

10.  The most obvious mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea.  Counsel for the defence asks the court to give due credit for the defendant’s plea.

11.  The defendant understands that there is a sentence guideline, and the defence accepts that there is no special circumstance that would allow the court to adopt a starting point below three years.

12.  Despite the previous similar record in July 2001, the defence argues that the defendant is not a professional trafficker: the facts reveal that he has accepted a friend’s suggestion to traffic in the drug, at which time he had but $200 with him. 

13.  Counsel for the defence asks the court to consider adopting three years as the starting point.

Discussion

14.  Drug abuse poses a constant threat to the well-being of the society.  It ruins families and breeds crimes, ad hoc and organised.  It wrecks a person’s life, sometimes beyond hope and repair. 

15.  Even those who have successfully fought and overcome their addiction, their personalities and emotional make-up can be marred for life; employment opportunities for them are very often limited; and prospects of their reintegration into the society are grim. 

16.  What often awaits drug addicts and ex-drug addicts is extreme poverty over sustained periods and a life without self-esteem. As a result, the society suffers beyond measure.

17.  Drug traffickers are responsible for the spread of this vice habit.  The duty is upon the court to play its part in the fight against drug trade, to see to it that no one would be in any doubt that the society does not tolerate criminal conduct involving drug deals.

18.  The particular dangerous drug with which the court is concerned is “Ice.” It can be cheaply produced and is highly addictive, even more so than heroin.  It causes delusion by affecting the central nervous system, resulting in toxic psychosis similar to paranoid schizophrenia.  Prolonged use of it can also result in damage to the lung, the liver, and the kidney.  

19.  In view of these factors, the Court of Appeal has laid down a sentence guideline for trafficking in “Ice” (Ching Kwok Hung’s case).  For zero to ten grammes of “Ice” an offender is found to have trafficked in, the appropriate sentence range is one of three to seven years’ imprisonment.  But the defendant in the instant case has trafficked in in excess of three grammes of “Ice”.  There is no special circumstance, the defence agrees, in the instant case to justify a departure from the guideline.

20.  The defendant has had, among others, a previous similar record prior to his current conviction.  Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, none of his personal and family circumstances would warrant any further reduction in sentence.

Conclusion

21.  In the result, the appropriate starting point is one of four years’ imprisonment, which is reduced by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea to one of two years and eight months’ imprisonment.

Order

22.  The defendant is sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment of two years and eight months.