HKSAR v. LIU CHUN SING

HCCC 380/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 380 OF 2015

_______________

______________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

______________________

1. The jury by its verdict has found the defendant guilty of the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug contained in the count on the indictment.

2. The prosecution case as accepted by the jury was that the defendant stored a large quantity of drugs and related paraphernalia in the false ceiling of a flat that he had rented and to which he had access. He was captured on CCTV footage in the company of others entering the building and going to the flat in question.  On two separate occasions on the same day, namely, 27 December 2014, he is seen carrying a chequered bag and a 9n9 bag. Later on 29 December 2014, when the landlady of the flat repossessed it, the chequered bag was found in the false ceiling of the flat.  It contained the 9n9 bag together with the drugs inside and other related items.  CCTVV footage depicted the defendant leaving the flat in the early morning of 29 December 2014 and the drugs were later found at around noon that day by the landlady. 

3. The defendant is 44 years of age.  He was 42 at the time of the offence.  He was educated to Secondary 5 level in Hong Kong and was unemployed at the time of arrest in February 2015.  He has a serious drug addiction problem and has been addicted to Ice for 2 to 3 years and prior to that, to heroin for more than 10 years.  He has a long list of prior convictions for drug and drug related offences from 1993 to 2013.  The drug offences have mainly been for possession although there is one for trafficking.  For the trafficking offence, he received 14 months’ imprisonment.  His last offence was for possession, and on 29 August 2013, he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.  He was discharged from custody on 27 May 2014.  So it was not long after that that he committed this offence.  He has received on numerous occasions a drug addiction treatment centre order but that unfortunately for him has not been successful in ridding him of his drug addiction. 

4. The defendant is single and claimed to live at a residence in Wong Chuk Street, Shamshuipo with a friend.  The defendant’s family consists of his parents, three elder brothers and one elder sister.  Although I have been informed that his mother passed away in 2008.  His father is elderly.  He is 82 years of age.  He has not had contact with his family for over 10 years.  I am informed that the reason for this is because he incurred substantial debt and was being pursued by loan sharks who troubled his family members.  This caused a rife between him and his family and hence he has not had contact with them since then.

5. It would seem that his drug addiction has had a deleterious effect on him and his relationship with his family, and on his life in general.  His problem started in his early 20s and no real explanation except for his drug addiction is the cause of the troubles he has found himself with the law since then. 

6. The narcotic content of the drugs was 1,177.7 g of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as Ice.  The retail value of the drugs at the time of the offence was a little over $500,000. 

7. According to the sentencing tariff laid down in AG v Ching Kwong Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 and HKSAR v Capitania [2004] HKCU 926 for a quantity of Ice of over 600 g a sentence should range from 18 years upwards.  The question of an appropriate sentence for very large quantities of Ice was addressed by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691, where the Abdallah guidelines were applied to very large quantities of Ice.  The tariff now fixed for a quantity of Ice of 600 to 1,200 g is 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment.  This decision was handed down on 9 June 2014 and the tariffs set out apply to all those persons who commit the offence of trafficking in Ice from that date.  The offence in this instance occurred on 27 December 2014 and the new tariff guidelines apply. 

8. Taking into account the tariff guidelines, I will adopt a starting point for the narcotic content involved of 22 years’ imprisonment.  There being no meaningful mitigation or any other reason given the grievousness of the offence warranting a reduction of sentence, the defendant is sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment.