HKSAR v. Lau Chi Chiu

DCCC 146/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 146 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.This is a case of stop and search in the street by police leading to the finding of drugs, namely, 16.07 grammes of a mixture containing 13.53 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  The defendant, a 46-year-old man, pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in dangerous drug.

2.On the day of offence, 22 November 2016, two plainclothes officers who were patrolling outside a secondary school in Wong Tai Sin saw the defendant walking up towards them with his hand pressed tight on his jeans pocket.  Feeling suspicious, the officers stopped the defendant for questioning.  A search of the defendant led to the discovery of the drugs in question which were put in 80 small packets of two different colours: blue and yellow, within four bags of 20 each.

3.The defendant admitted to the officer that he had received $1,000 from somebody to help deliver the No. 4 heroin to Yue Xiu Plaza.  The officer also found on him $2,000 cash, a mobile phone and an Octopus card.

4.The street value of the drugs seized is estimated to be slightly over $11,000.

5.The defendant has amassed 13 previous convictions over the past 28 years.  Seven of them are drug-related, and trafficking is his first offence.

6.Apart from saying that the substantial mitigation is the plea of guilty, there is not very much put forward by way of mitigation by defence counsel.  In his letter to court, defendant wrote that he recognised the harmful effect of drugs to the community at large and to individuals and said that he was determined to turn over a new leaf and to become a useful member of the community.  He has also registered as an organ donor. 

7.There are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence.  For trafficking an amount between 10 grammes and 50 grammes, a term of 5 to 8 years is to be considered.  Having heard the mitigation, I see no good reason to depart from the guidance as set down by the higher court.  For the amount he admitted trafficking, I take 5 years as starting point.  Insofar as mitigation is concerned, apart from his guilty plea, there is not any mitigation of substance which would justify a further reduction in sentence.  He is entitled to a one-third discount.  That would reduce the starting point to 40 months.  There being no other basis for a further reduction, the defendant is therefore sentenced to a term of 40 months’ imprisonment.