HKSAR v. Kwok Ching Keung

DCCC641/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 641 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 7.93 grammes of a mixture containing 5.12 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. He has also pleaded guilty to possession of a dangerous drug, namely, 0.11 gramme of a mixture containing heroin hydrochloride.

2.The facts are very common in that the defendant was seen in the evening at about 8.40 pm acting furtively. The police officer revealed his identity. The defendant ran away and, subsequently, the defendant was stopped by other police officers who put him under control. Body search of him revealed a total of 35 packets of suspected dangerous drugs inside his right front jacket pocket.

3.Defendant was arrested, and under caution, he admitted that he was delivering drugs for a reward and he would deliver that drugs twice a day, and the normal working hours were between 4 pm and midnight.

4.After the defendant’s arrest, he was detained at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre when, upon admission, he was warned that he had to surrender all restricted items in his possession. Defendant remained silent, but on 11 April, a packet of dangerous drugs was found in his excrement. The defendant then under caution admitted that he had swallowed the packet of dangerous drugs at the time of his arrest because he was nervous at the time.

5.The defendant is aged 35 and has had 14 previous convictions, 6 of which are drug-related. It is true, as Mr Wong pointed out, this is his first time that he has been convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

6.In mitigation, Mr Wong claimed that the defendant is unemployed and has committed these present offences in order to earn money for himself and his parents’ likelihood. I think the defendant committed these offences out of laziness and greed. The defendant is a young man with no physical disabilities. There is no reason whatsoever that he cannot find a job and be gainfully employed rather than go on CSSA assistance as he is doing.

7.The only mitigating factor in this case is the defendant has pleaded guilty which is a sign of his remorse, and so he is entitled to the full one-third discount. As Lau Tak Ming’s case in 1990 pointed out, for trafficking in up to 10 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, a sentence of between 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment is recommended after trial.

8.Therefore, for trafficking in 5.12 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, I consider that an appropriate starting point is one of 3 and a half years. Because of the defendant’s plea, it is reduced to 28 months.

The 2nd Charge

9.The defendant was in possession of the packet of drugs in the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, and that is an aggravating factor. Whether he intended to swallow it or did not intend to swallow it, he should have revealed it to the intake officer upon his admission at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre. So I consider that an appropriate sentence after trial would be 6 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 4 because of his plea. But both the sentence in the 2nd charge and the 1st charge will be served concurrently, and so the defendant will be sent to prison for 28 months.