HKSAR v. Lau Wai Kwong
|
DCCC1042/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1042 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
------------------------ Reasons for Sentence ------------------------ 1.Stand up, defendant. 2.The defendant in this case pleaded guilty to three charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. All the charges were committed on 6 July 2010. 3.The 1st charge relates to a sale of dangerous drugs of 0.07 grammes of “Ice” at the junction of Mong Kok Road and Reclamation Street. When he was arrested, he was found in possession of a small quantity of “Ice”, 1.15 grammes of “Ice”. That is the subject of the 2nd charge. The officers then went to the premises occupied by the defendant and made a recovery of a further quantity of drugs: 3.77 grammes of “Ice”, 0.41 grammes of heroin, and 0.8 grammes of cocaine. 4.The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that on 6 July 2010, police officers were on patrol in Mong Kok area, and at 7.30 they saw the defendant at the junction of Mong Kok Road and Reclamation Street. The defendant was observed participating in a drug trafficking transaction. A man was seen to take some cash out and give it to the defendant, and in return, the defendant handed something to the male. 5.The defendant and the man then separated, and the members of the police team then went up to and arrested the defendant. They found the drugs, the subject of the 2nd charge, in his pocket, and he also had $150 in cash. 6.The officers also intercepted the man whom they had seen handing cash to the defendant, and he was detained and found to be in possession of the drugs, the subject of the 1st charge. 7.The defendant’s residence was then searched and the police found the drugs, the subject of the 3rd charge, together with some empty resealable plastic bags. 8.The defendant, under interview, admitted selling the “Ice” to the man, the subject of the 1st charge, and receiving $150 for the “Ice”. The defendant told the police officers that a few days prior to his arrest, he had paid $4,000 for a selection of drugs and he was intending to repackage them in resealable plastic bags. He estimated he would earn $3,000 to $4,000 from the sale of the drugs. The defendant, who is a drug addict, said some of the “Ice” was left over and he intended to consume that himself. 9.Forensic examination of the drugs confirmed that the items seized from the defendant were the drugs the subject of the charges. The street value of the drugs recovered from the defendant was just over $5,000. 10.The defendant has appeared before the court on a number of previous occasions, seven previous occasions in respect of 13 offences. Only one of those offences is drug-related and that was in 2002, when, for possession of dangerous drugs, he was fined $5,000. 11.I have been told in mitigation that the defendant, who is aged 61, was born in Hong Kong. He is separated from his wife and he also lives separately from his 31-year-old son. The defendant was educated to Primary 6 level and he is in receipt of public assistance of $3,800 per month. He has been unemployed for some time. I am told that because of his age, the defendant finds it difficult to find employment. 12.I am told that the circumstances which led to the commission of this offence follow a loan from a friend of $2,000, and it was in order to pay this loan that the defendant found himself under pressure to commit the current offence. 13.I am told that the defendant has now been detained for three months, and because of that, his drug addiction has diminished and that he intends to turn over a new leaf when he is released from prison. 14.Trafficking in “Ice” attracts a prison sentence, in the quantities which the defendant was trafficking, of 3 to 7 years' imprisonment. In relation to the 3rd charge, I note that the defendant was not only trafficking in “Ice”, but he was also trafficking in heroin and cocaine, and the quantity involved in the 3rd charge was 3.77 grammes of “Ice”. 15.The only mitigation in this case is the defendant’s guilty plea, which will entitle him to the one-third discount from the usual sentences. 16.Looking at all the circumstances, what I have decided to do in the 1st charge is to take a sentence of 3 years, reduce that to 2 years to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea. 17.On the 2nd charge, I also order that the defendant go to prison for 2 years, and I order that 4 months of that sentence should run consecutive to the sentence on the 1st charge. 18.As regards to the 3rd charge, looking at the question of totality, I have decided to again adopt a 3-year starting point, reduce it to 2 years to reflect the guilty plea, but in view of the quantity, I order that 8 months of that sentence should run consecutive to the other sentences, and that would make a total of 36 months’ imprisonment.
|