HKSAR v. Lam Sai Sing

DCCC1077/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1077 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and one charge of possession of offensive weapons, contrary to section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228.

2.The facts are simple. On 21 July 2010, while the police were executing a search warrant on the rooftop of Cheung On Mansion, Kwun Tong, the defendant was seen coming out from the premises. He was therefore brought back to the premises and, on his person, some keys were found. One of the keys was then used to open the padlock of a desk drawer. Inside the drawer, three plastic bags containing a total of 119 packets of heroin hydrochloride were found. The drug was that particularized in the charge, that is, a total of 25.72 grammes of a mixture containing 15.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Paraphernalia like an electronic scale, a wad of white plastic sheets and a wad of resealable plastic bags were found alongside the drug. This is the subject matter of the first charge.

3.Upon further search, two machetes, three beef knives, three survival knives, one Kukri knife, one fruit knife and one iron pipe with blade were found being covered by a piece of cloth and placed in the lower shelf of a cabinet. This is the subject matter of the second charge.

4.The defendant is aged 46 and is now separated from his wife. He received education up to Primary 6 and worked as a casual construction site worker, earning about HK$6,000 per month at the time of his arrest. Since 1979, he has been before the court on 15 previous occasions and has got convictions in respect of various offences, including possession of a dangerous drug, theft, burglary and assaulting a police officer. In April 2001, he was sentenced to DATC for two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In February this year, he was again sentenced to DATC for possession of a dangerous drug and assaulting a police officer. The defendant was recently released on 25 June 2010. Yet, within less than a month, he committed the present offences.

5.In mitigation, Mr. Chan for the defendant said that the defendant’s previous trafficking in a dangerous drug convictions were quite dated and were not serious ones as he was only sent to the DATC for those offences. Therefore, he should not be regarded as one who has a bad record in trafficking drugs. It was also said on behalf of the defendant that the offensive weapons found in his possession were stored inside a cabinet in his own private premises. As the defendant possessed these weapons with the intent to use the same for safeguarding purposes in the course of his trafficking in the dangerous drug, the two offences could be described as part and parcel of the same unlawful enterprise. Concurrent sentences are therefore asked for.  

6.In R v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in heroin. For trafficking between 10 and 50 grammes of narcotic, a term of imprisonment of 5 to 8 years is called for. In the instant case, the narcotic involved is 15.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. For this quantity, I consider a starting point of 5½ years to be appropriate.

7.I have carefully considered the matters put forth in mitigation. Other than the defendant’s pleas, I do not see any other factors which warrant a reduction in sentence. For charge (1), I am going to adopt a starting point of 5½ years. The defendant pleaded guilty and will be given a one-third reduction for that. He is therefore to serve a term of 44 months’ imprisonment for this charge.

8.In respect of charge (2), I have examined the weapons and found most of them with sharp blades, some with serrated edges. The iron pipe with a sharpened blade appears to be self-made. All these are lethal weapons and it is not an exaggeration to say that the defendant had with him at home an armoury of knives. Although they were stored inside the defendant’s premises, the defendant admitted that he possessed these weapons with the intent to use them for safeguarding purposes in the course of his drug business. I consider this a serious matter in view of the likely harm these weapons could cause to others when being used and I take the view that a heavy sentence has to be imposed in order to have deterrent effect. I therefore consider a starting point of 1½ years to be appropriate. The defendant pleaded guilty and will be given one-third reduction for his plea. He is therefore to serve a term of 1 year for this charge.

The facts in relation to the 2^nd charge are separate and distinct from those of the first and the sentences should run consecutively. However, having considered the totality principle, I regard an overall sentence of 54 months to be appropriate for these two offences. I therefore order that 10 months of the sentence in respect of charge (2) are to run consecutively to that of charge (1), making a total of 54 months’ imprisonment.