HKSAR v. Chiu Chi Wing

DCCC 816/2017

[2018] HKDC 253

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 816 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.Defendant is convicted of a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 on his own guilty plea.  Drugs involved is 22.73 grammes of a mixture containing 17.53 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. 

2.According to the agreed Summary of Facts, defendant was found in possession of the above drugs.  The same was packed into two plastic bags in which there were respectively 30 packets containing a total 14 grammes of mixture containing 10.09 grammes of heroin hydrochloride and 35 packets containing a total 8.73 grammes of mixture containing 6.63 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

3.Under caution, defendant admitted that he was paid $1,000 to help deliver the drugs for another.  He had no money and no job at the time and he knew the said plastic bags contained heroin.

4.Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a serious offence, and in usual circumstances, personal background and circumstances is not considered valid mitigating factor.  In the case of R v Lau Tak Ming & Others, CACC 230/1989 the band for sentencing a defendant for trafficking in heroin, between 10 grammes and 50 grammes would lie between 5 to 8 years.

5.Considering the quantity of drugs in question in the present case, the sentencing starting point should be 5 years and 6 months. 

6.This court noted that defendant had two previous similar convictions in the past, the last of which dated 2013 when he was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months.  He was released in late 2016 or very early January 2017.  The present offence was committed in July 2017, ie within nine months of the release. It is clear that the sentence previously passed on him does not deter him from further commission of these offences.  But for the mitigation by his counsel, Miss Chan, I would have enhanced the sentence on him as a persistent offender in the interest of protection of the public.  On this occasion, I am not going to enhance the sentence.

7.The only useful mitigation in sentencing in this case is his timely guilty plea and he is given full one-third discount.  Accordingly, he is sentenced to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for the present offence.