HKSAR v. Chan Mei-chiu

DCCC624/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 624 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant is convicted upon his guilty plea of a single charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2.In sentencing, I have taken into account the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular, the nature and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, background of the defendant as well as mitigation put forward on his behalf.

3.The facts of the case are simple. The defendant was stopped by police officers on the street. Upon search, a plastic bag was found on him. Inside the bag, there were 3 big transparent plastic bags, each containing 4 small transparent plastic bags, each containing 20 packets of suspected dangerous drug, totalling 240 packets of dangerous drug. The dangerous drug concerned was 44.56 grammes of a mixture containing 17.94 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

4.Under caution the defendant admitted that he was delivering the dangerous drug for a man called Ah Keung for a reward of $800.

5.The defendant is 49 years of age. He is not a first-time offender. From January 1981, he was on 34 occasions convicted. Amongst these convictions, 6 were for possession of dangerous drugs. The last of such convictions was in August 2002 for which he was given a suspended sentence. Other offences he committed included gambling, theft related offences, offences in relation to obscene articles and offences in relation to breach of copyrights.

6.In mitigation the court was told that after his last discharge from prison in December 2009, the defendant had been in financial difficulties. He could only earn a few hundred dollars a month for being a casual worker. In February 2010 he applied for CSSA. In April he was desperate and agreed to deliver the dangerous drug for a reward of $800.

7.It was held in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 that the tariff for trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of heroin was 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment. Having considered the whole circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to depart from the guidelines as laid down in the case.

8.The Court of Appeal said also in Lau Tak Ming that within the suggested bands the court should take into account the following factors: the profit which may reasonably be expected; the number of packets; the type of mixture containing the narcotic; the degree of involvement of the offender and his previous history of narcotics offences.

9.I note that though the defendant had been convicted before for possession of dangerous drug, this is the first time he is convicted of the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. Learned defence counsel stressed that the defendant was merely a courier. There is no evidence to prove otherwise.

10.In my judgment, in the context of the present case, a starting point of 5 years is appropriate for trafficking in that quantity of heroin. The defendant pleaded guilty, he is entitled to a one-third discount.

11.In all the circumstances and bearing in mind mitigation submission of learned defence counsel, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to. Based on the matters aforesaid, I sentence the defendant to 40 months’ imprisonment for the charge.