HKSAR v. Kwok Tat Kwong

DCCC 685/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 685 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134; and one count of possession of apparatus, contrary to section 36(1) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

2.The defendant was convicted on the charges upon his own plea of guilty and admission of the facts.

The facts

3.On 27 April 2017 in the afternoon, during a police operation, the police raided the defendant’s residence and found:-

(1) 2 re-sealable bags containing 40 pellets containing total of 8.07 gm of mixture containing 5.69 gm of heroin hydrochloride, placed under a washing machine;

(2) 37 transparent re-sealable plastic bags;

(3) an electronic scale;

(4) some dangerous drug inhaling equipment, including a bottle contained small traces of methamphetamine.

4.Under caution, the defendant said that he kept the heroin in his custody for a friend for a reward of $1,000.  He was a drug addict and would use the inhaling equipment found.

5.The estimated market value of the drug being $6,907.90.

Mitigation

6.The defendant aged 56 living with his girlfriend and their daughter aged 14.  He is a drug addict.  He has 18 conviction records, including 14 counts dangerous drugs related offences, 2 of which was possession for purpose of unlawful trafficking in 1990, his last conviction was in 2015 of which he was sentenced to DATC.

7.The defendant relied on CSSA and worked as causal cleaner earning $250 per day.  He suffered from asthma and heart disease.

Sentence

8.Heroin is a hard drug; I refer to the tariff in the case Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 for trafficking heroin: up to 10 grammes 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.  For possession of apparatus for inhaling dangerous drug, one is liable to a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for 3 years.

9.Though the defendant claimed that his family had no knowledge of his drug activity, the facts that the defendant kept the dangerous drug and his apparatus for inhaling dangerous drug in his residence with his family including his daughter who aged 14, was exposing the daughter to the risk of the dangerous drug, and the inhaling equipment.

10.Although I have reservation that the numerous re-sealable plastic bags were for the use of the daughter and the electronic scale was to measure Chinese herbs, I do not consider this would have any significant impact in the sentence.  

11.Taking into account of the facts, the mitigation and the packing and the quantity of the drugs, I consider the appropriate starting point for charge one to be 4 years’ imprisonment and that for charge 2 to be one of 15 months.

12.The defendant pleaded guilty and I allow him one third discount for his plea.  I do not consider there to be any mitigating factors that called for further deduction.

13.The 2 offences were discovered on the same day; they were separate offences.  However, after taking into account of the totality principle, I shall order the sentence of the charges to run concurrent with each other.

Order

Charge 1 sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 2 sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment, concurrent with charge one;

making a total of 32 months