HKSAR v. Tam Nga Wai

DCCC 787/2019

[2020] HKDC 178

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 787 OF 2019

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved is heroin.

Summary of Facts

2.About 3:50 p.m. on 15 July 2019, police officers stopped the defendant at the Nam Cheong Street Sitting-out Area (near the junction of Nam Cheong Street and Fuk Wa Street) in Sham Shui Po for enquiry.

3.Upon search, the defendant was found holding a piece of tissue paper in her left hand.  The following items were wrapped inside the piece of tissue paper :-

(i) 1 transparent resealable plastic bag containing 10 pellets (consisting of plastic wrappings) which contained a total of 4.99 grammes of a mixture containing 4.13 grammes of heroin hydrochloride; and

(ii) 1 transparent resealable plastic bag containing 15 pellets (consisting of plastic wrappings) which contained a total of 2.58 grammes of a mixture containing 2.15 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

4.Under caution, the defendant admitted that she was out of employment for a few months.  She helped other(s) to deliver "Four Chai".

5.In her video recorded interview, the defendant clarified that "Four Chai" means heroin.  She claimed that she met an acquaintance named "Ah Wai" at the Nam Cheong Sitting-out Area on the day before.  She asked him whether there were jobs for her.  Ah Wai told her to return on the following day.  About 3:00 p.m. on 15 July 2019, Ah Wai called the defendant asking her to pick up a piece of tissue paper hidden in the flower bed near Block 21, Shek Kip Mei Estate and bring it to the Nam Cheong Sitting-out Area.  She would receive $500 for doing so.  The defendant admitted that she had checked the contents wrapped inside the piece of tissue paper.  She was intercepted by the police officers when she reached the Nam Cheong Sitting-out Area.

Mitigation & Sentence

6.The defendant is 46 and separated with no children.  She has 9 conviction records, which included 1 "trafficking" offence and 3 "simple possession" offences. For her previous "trafficking" offence, she was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment in November 2016.

7.Defence solicitor Ms. Chong informed me that the defendant resides with her mother.  She has worked as a casual cleaner for over 20 years earning about $10,000 per month.  In mitigation, Ms. Chong submitted that the defendant wanted to earn some quick money to ease her financial problems.  A letter written by the defendant was placed before me; its contents are duly noted.

8.Drug abuse has always been a problem in our society.  A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" is a serious crime and that drug traffickers would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment, so that there is a deterrent effect. Needless to say, being in financial difficulty (however serious) is no mitigating factor for committing a crime.

9.The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in heroin (see The Queen v LAU Tak-ming & others [1990] 2 HKLR 370).  For up to 10 grammes, the sentence ranges from 2 to 5 years' imprisonment.  In the present case, the defendant trafficked in 6.28 grammes.  Applying a strict arithmetical approach, the appropriate starting point is 3 years and 11 months.

10.The defendant is no stranger to drug-related offences.  I consider a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment to be appropriate and just.  With her timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 32 months.   Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 32 months' imprisonment.