HKSAR v. Lau Tak Mong

HCCC 287/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 287 OF 2015

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant, Mr Lau Tak-mong, faces two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, both contrary to section 4 (1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. He pleads not guilty to both counts but is convicted after trial by the jury of the 1st count and acquitted of the 2nd count.

The particulars of the count the defendant stands convicted are that on the 10th day of October, 2014, at DD 130, Lot 2172/2173, Sun Fung Wai, Castle Peak Road, Lam Tei, Tuen Mun, New Territories in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 48.6 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 48.0 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Evidence in the trial

According to the evidence in the trial, at about 11.30 pm on 9 October 2014, police officers raided the living place of the defendant at Lot 2172 and Lot 2173, Sun Fung Wai, Tuen Mun. I shall refer to this place as “the premises”. The police officers broke into the premises and found that there was nobody inside. They found, on a mah-jong table inside a room in the premises, a tin box with 9 transparent resealable plastic bags inside. In these bags, there were crystalline solids of a total weight of 48.6 grammes containing 48 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’. On the mah-jong table, there were also two electronic scales and a pair of scissors. Inside a drawer of the mah-jong table, a home visit permit in the name of the defendant was found.

The defendant returned to the premises with two males at about 3.18 am on 10 October 2014. The defendant was arrested and cautioned for trafficking the dangerous drugs found inside the premises. Under caution, he said that the ‘Ice’ was for selling by him.

The evidence of the defendant in the trial is that the 9 packets of the dangerous drugs, with the exception of one, did not belong to him. The one which belonged to him should contain 10-odd grammes of ‘Ice’ which he kept in another room in the premises for his own consumption. The defendant says that he did not have any knowledge of the rest of the dangerous drugs and the dangerous drugs did not belong to him. He did not traffic in those dangerous drugs. He adds that the room in which the dangerous drug was found had been rented to his friend who lived there with his girlfriend.

Criminal Record

The defendant has 28 previous convictions, of which 11 were possession of a dangerous drug and 2 were trafficking in a dangerous drug. He was last convicted on 16 June 2011 of 2 counts of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, for which he was sentenced to a total of 16 months imprisonment.

Mitigation

The defendant is aged 48. He is a drug addict and has been to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. The mother of the defendant is aged 85 and is very ill. Counsel for the defendant tells the court that although the defendant had previous convictions related to dangerous drug, the last one took place in the year 2000 which is more than 10 years ago.

The defence counsel further points out that the premises of the defendant had been occupied by other villagers since his incarceration and his two expensive dogs had also been taken away. The defendant has, as a result, suffered tremendous financial loss. The defence counsel asks the court to be lenient to the defendant so that he can be released earlier to look after his mother. The defence counsel suggests the court to adopt a starting point of 9 years imprisonment.

Sentence

The Court of Appeal laid down sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ‘Ice’ in the case of HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691. For a quantity of 10 to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’, the starting point is 7 to 11 years imprisonment. In this case, the amount of ‘Ice’ involved is 48 grammes and the starting point should be about 9 years and 6 months imprisonment.

Although the defendant has suffered financial losses because of his premises being occupied by the others and the loss of the dogs, such losses do not justify the court to depart from the sentencing guidelines. The court therefore adopts a starting point of 9 years 6 months imprisonment.

The court is of the view that the defendant has no valid grounds of mitigation. The court sentences the defendant to 9 years 6 months imprisonment.