HKSAR v. Lai Check Hong (also known as Lai Chak Hong)
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 1075/2015 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 15 April 2016.
2. About 12:30 a.m. on 5 October 2015, 2 police officers stopped the defendant outside Mei Ying House, Shek Kep Mei Estate for enquiry.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases
|
DCCC 1075/2015 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1075 OF 2015 ____________
____________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in dangerous drugs". The dangerous drugs involved are heroin and a negligible quantity of midazolam. Summary of Facts 2.About 12:30 a.m. on 5 October 2015, 2 police officers stopped the defendant outside Mei Ying House, Shek Kep Mei Estate for enquiry. 3.Upon search, the following items were found in the bag carried by the defendant :- (i) 40 packets (consisting of plastic wrappings) which contained a total of 11.50 grammes of a mixture containing 7.44 grammes of heroin hydrochloride; (ii) 40 packets (consisting of plastic wrappings) which contained a total of 7.53 grammes of a mixture containing 5.16 grammes of heroin hydrochloride; and (iii) 4 foilpacks which contained a total of 40 tablets containing 0.51 gramme of midazolam. 4.Under caution, the defendant admitted carrying the "Pak Fun" and "Lam Zai" for others and would receive $500 each time. In his video recorded interview, he claimed, inter alia, that he was a heroin addict 10 years ago, but has quit now. Mitigation & Sentence 5.The defendant is now 60 and has 23 conviction records, which included 2 "trafficking" offences[1] and numerous "simple possession" offences. Defence counsel Ms. YIU informed me that the defendant is married with no children. He used to be a hawker selling electronic appliances. In 1990, he injured his leg in an accident and lost 50% of his earning capacity. He receives a disability allowance each month. 6.In mitigation, Ms. YIU submitted that the defendant was a little confused during his video recorded interview. He was in fact a heroin addict at the time of the offence. He intended to consume a quarter of the heroin found on him. Medical reports showing the defendant's addiction were placed before me; their contents are duly noted. 7.Drug abuse has always been a problem in our society, and the HKSAR is determined to fight the battle against drugs in all aspects. A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" is a serious crime and that drug traffickers would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment, so that there is a deterrent effect. 8.The quantity of midazolam involved in the present case was so negligible that I am prepared to disregard it for the purpose of sentencing. I will sentence the defendant based on the quantity of heroin. 9.The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in heroin (see The Queen v LAU Tak-ming & others [1990] 2 HKLR 370). For 10 to 50 grammes, the sentence ranges from 5 to 8 years' imprisonment. The defendant trafficked in 12.60 grammes of heroin, the appropriate starting point is 5 years. 10.Regarding the claim for self-consumption, I have reminded myself of the relevant sentencing principles[2]. There is sufficient evidence to show that the defendant was a drug user at the time of arrest. On the other hand, the packaging of the heroin found clearly facilitates trafficking. I am prepared to reduce the sentence to 54 months[3] to reflect the discount for self-consumption. 11.Finally, a one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence further to 36 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 36 months' imprisonment.
[1] Dated 1995 and 2009 respectively. [2] See HKSAR v CHOW Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121; HKSAR v WONG Suet Hau & another [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 and HKSAR v CHEUK Kin Man CACC 294/2009 (English translation). [3] In CHOW Chun Sang, Yeung VP held "We are of the view that in drug trafficking cases, when all or part of the drugs are intended for the trafficker’s own consumption, the ensuing discount to sentence should, depending on circumstances, fall somewhere between 10% and 25% of the basic starting point. In determining the extent of discount in a particular case, the court should have regard to factors including the total quantities of the drugs involved, proportion of the drugs intended for self-use, the nature of the drugs, whether the drug trafficking was for financial gain, whether the trafficking was organized and premeditated, and the background and criminal record of the defendant." (paragraph 19, p.1126) |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case