HKSAR v. Lai Long San

DCCC 472/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 472 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.The particulars of this offence are that on 6 March 2016, in Hung Hom, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in 24.2 grammes of a solid containing 19.9 grammes of cocaine.

3.The facts of this case are very straightforward.  On that date at about 9.45 pm, police officers had set up a roadblock in Hung Hom.  At about 10 o’clock they stopped a taxi, and the defendant was a passenger in this taxi.  A police officer saw the defendant holding a phone, with his head looking down.  That officer asked the defendant to get out of the taxi.

4.The defendant was searched.  In a plastic bag in his right front pocket, that police officer found cocaine.  In fact, there were two bags containing that amount of cocaine.  The police officer also found three mobile phones in the defendant’s left front pocket.

5.At the police station the defendant was searched again, and the police found over $12,000 in Hong Kong dollars.

6.The taxi driver was interviewed.  That taxi driver told the police the defendant had got into his taxi in Kwun Tong and told him to go to Wong Tai Sin, but in fact then changed his mind and ended up in To Kwa Wan.  The defendant, at To Kwa Wan, got out for a short while and then returned to the taxi.  He told the same taxi driver to go to Tsim Sha Tsui, before changing his mind and telling him to go to Tsuen Wan.  It was on the way to Tsuen Wan the taxi was stopped by the police roadblock.

7.It is agreed by the defendant that the estimate retail price of that cocaine was $25,846.

8.The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.

9.The defendant had, at the time of the offence, only just turned 19, and he had a clear record.  I adjourned sentencing to today to call for a training centre report. 

10.I heard in mitigation that the defendant had left school at the end of Form 2, which he repeated, and after that he became involved with undesirable peers and became a drug courier.

11.I have had a letter written to me by the defendant’s father.  It has been explained that the defendant’s mother left home when the defendant was very young.  They have had no contact since with the defendant’s mother.  The defendant’s father has since remarried.  In the letter, the defendant’s father explains that he had to work very hard and did not have much time to spend guiding and disciplining the defendant.  He does have a daughter now from his second wife, who is only 7 years old, who is very close to the defendant and misses him since he has been arrested.

12.There is further detail of the defendant’s background in the training centre report.  The officer who wrote this report said the defendant was very frank.  He admits that since he has left school he has never had any gainful employment.  That is because he very quickly became involved with trafficking drugs, earning quite a lot of money every week.  The report repeats the defendant’s family background.  It also emphasises his father and stepmother worked and could not render sufficient supervision over the defendant.

13.It explains how the defendant was not academic and had to repeat Form 1 and Form 2, and in about 2011, he became involved with friends who were triads, and in fact joined a triad society.  Not long after leaving school in July 2013, he became involved in peddling drugs.

14.He frankly told the officer that he had been very lucky and had not been caught by the police for several years.  On this particular date, he had purchased the cocaine himself and was planning to resell it to his customers for a higher price.  This report says the defendant was observed to have absolutely no reflection into his wrongdoing which needed correction desperately.  He even disclosed that he planned to continue his dangerous drug business after discharge.

15.The defendant’s father and stepmother were interviewed.  They had absolutely no idea the defendant was selling drugs. They remain supportive, and hope the defendant can turn over a new leaf.

16.Ultimately, the recommendation is a training centre order.  I quote:  “In view of his weak self-control ability and law‑abiding concept, a period of disciplinary training, coupled with statutory supervision, is considered beneficial to his reformation.”

17.With drugs of this quantity, I have referred myself to the authorities that give guidelines, and the guideline for trafficking cocaine is the same as that for trafficking heroin, and I have referred myself to the authority of R v Lau Tak Ming [1992] HKLR 370.

18.Taking that authority into account, trafficking 19.9 grammes of cocaine should attract a sentence starting point of about 5 years and 6 months.  Very rarely would the courts consider anything but a term of imprisonment appropriate for a drug trafficker, even where a defendant is extremely young.  The courts have to reflect the seriousness of trafficking drugs and the damage it does to society in Hong Kong.

19.However, in this case, the defendant, prior to this arrest, had a clear record, and since he has left school has known nothing but how to make money from selling drugs.  All he has known is selling drugs. In my view, the court not only has to consider the punishment aspect, but also the rehabilitation of an offender.  I agree with the officer who wrote this report the defendant needs a period of disciplinary training.  The fact the defendant has already considered what he would do after his release from this sentence, and that is to continue selling dangerous drugs, is indicative of the fact he has no law‑abiding concept at all.  In order to try and prevent him spending his entire life in and out of prison, I feel a training centre order at this stage would be appropriate, and it is under those circumstances that I depart from the normal immediate custodial sentence.

20.For this trafficking in dangerous drugs offence, the defendant is sentenced to training centre.