HKSAR v. Tung Shu Fun

DCCC798/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 798 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The particulars state that the offence was committed in Mongkok on 13 May, and the drug was 11.19 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. On that day, officers were conducting an anti-dangerous-drug operation in Yung Shue Tau. The defendant was spotted in a park there, acting suspiciously. He was approached by a number of people who looked like drug addicts. He left Yung Shue Tau by bus and went to Mongkok and was followed there by the police officers and was seen to enter the Mongkok Road Playground. He was seen to have a look very closely at the flowerbed, and the officers became suspicious.

2.The officers approached him and they found in his possession 99 packets containing a mixture of dangerous drugs. They were in the rear pocket of his jeans. He admitted it was heroin. He said that he would help an unknown friend to sell the drug for $800 per day, and he would recover the drugs from a flowerbed in the Mongkok Playground. At the time of his arrest, he was in possession of HK$1,523 and RMB200. The estimated street value of the drugs is $7,000.

3.The defendant has 26 previous court appearances, 4 of which were for trafficking in dangerous drugs, and I note that in 2003 he was sent to prison for 40 months for trafficking in drugs. The last appearance before the court was in February of 2009 when he was ordered to go to the drug addiction treatment centre for possession of dangerous drugs, and I understand he was released from there in July of last year.

4.I have been told that the defendant is aged 50. He was born in Hong Kong and educated to Primary 6 level. He works as a transportation worker earning some $3,000 per month. I am told that he has been a heroin addict for 20 years. He lives with his wife who works as a cashier and has a father aged 70 who lives separately.

5.The only mitigation in this case, as Mr Lee has acknowledged, is that the defendant has pleaded guilty and positively co-operated with the police at the time of his arrest.

6.The quantity of drugs puts the sentence for this offence in the 5-to-8-year category. I accept that this offence is at the lower range of that category and I intend to adopt a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment. The defendant will be given full credit for his guilty plea. The sentence therefore will be one of 40 months' imprisonment.