HKSAR v. Lau Chi Hong
|
DCCC662/2009 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 662 OF 2009 ----------------------
---------------------- Before: Deputy District Judge Casewell Date: 21 August 2009 at 12.03 pm
Offence: (1) & (2) Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物) ------------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ------------------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The charges arise out of an operation by Customs Excise Officers on the morning of 28 April 2009. 2.The defendant was intercepted in the Sham Shiu Po area and searched. At the time of his initial search he was found to be in possession of certain drugs. They were firstly 3 plastic bags containing a gramme of a mixture which had about half a gramme of heroine hydrochloride. And the two further plastic bags containing 1.4 grammes of a solid which contained 1.3 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride which is “Ice”. 3.At the time the defendant said they were for his own consumption. Subsequently the premises of the defendant was searched and further drugs were found there. There was a plastic bag containing 13.77 grammes of a mixture which had actually 5.79 grammes of heroine hydrochloride. A bank note with a small quantity of ketamine and paraphernalia such as scales and resealable plastic bags for the commercial sale of the drug. The defendant, at the time, said the drugs were for his own consumption. In court today he has admitted he was trafficking in them. 4.In mitigation it is to be said that some of the drug would have been for his own consumption but the defendant certainly was trafficking in at least three separate drugs. 5.As far as the defendant’s antecedents are concerned, he has a number of previous convictions. He has been convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug previously in 1996 and received a suspended sentence at that time. He has four convictions of possession of a dangerous drug and in 2004 and 2006 he was sent to a drug addiction treatment centre. In mitigation today it has been said that that was obviously unsuccessful because the defendant says he is still addicted to drugs. 6.The defendant is now 35 years of age and in his mitigation he says he is the sole breadwinner for a family. He has a son aged 9 who is studying in P3 and he has a daughter who is in form 1. These children are taken care of by his parents but he is the provider in terms of finances for these children and he is worried about what will happen to them should he go to prison for any length of time. The defendant showed remorse and naturally asked for a lenient sentence. 7.As far as sentencing is concerned, the key guideline as to the approach that must be taken, the 1st charge shows the defendant was trafficking in a small quantity of heroin hydrochloride and also in “Ice” as well. Trafficking in “Ice” simpliciter, the starting point for sentences, even on a small quantity is 3 years’ imprisonment. On the 2nd charge the defendant has trafficked in heroine hydrochloride with a quantity for the consideration for tariff of 5.79 grammes. There was also a small quantity of ketamine. 8.The heroine hydrochloride, the starting point in sentence for that offence would be in the region of 2½ years’ imprisonment. The offences were both committed on the same day but they do constitute separate acts of trafficking and the drug that was trafficked in the 1st charge is largely different from that in the 2nd charge. 9.I shall take the following approach to sentence. On the 1st charge, I will take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce that to 2 years’ imprisonment having regard to the defendant’s plea of guilty. On the 2nd charge, I shall adopt a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment and reduce that to 1 year 8 months’ imprisonment having regard to the defendant’s plea of guilty. The defendant has been convicted of two separate acts of trafficking. The sentences must to some extent be served consecutively. 10.In determining the total sentence, I do bear in mind that the defendant said he was, himself, a drug addict and may have access to some of drugs that were found. What I shall order is that in respect to the 2nd charge, 8 months of that sentence shall be served consecutively to the 1st charge and the balance of 1 year will be served concurrently which gives a total sentence of 2 years’ and 8 months’ imprisonment.
|