HKSAR v. Ho Tak Shing

DCCC1235/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1235 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The defendant was charged with trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, he is convicted accordingly.

Facts

On 14^th September 2010, at about 1313 hours, during an anti-dangerous drug operation at Lok Yuen House, the defendant was seen walking down from 2^nd to 1^st floor, his act aroused the suspicious of the officers who then stopped and searched him at the staircase of the first floor.

From the left armpit of the defendant, two plastic bags contained 80 packets containing a total of 13.02 grammes of a mixture containing 9.87 grammes of Heroin Hydrochloride was found. The street value of the drug was about HK$12,187.

The defendant admitted that he was to deliver the drug to Nam Cheong Street Park and hid it at the flowerbed at about 2pm for $400.

I refer to the tariff of Lau Tak-ming [1990] HKLR 370, and considered the appropriate starting point to be 5 years.

The defendant aged 52, divorced. The defendant was unemployment at time of the offence. It is submitted that 20 out of 80 packets was a reward for his own consumption, I noted that the defendant was at the material time coming out from his residence with the 80 packets, should the 20 packets was for his own consumption I see no reason to carry them with him at the time, thus I rejected this part of the mitigation.

The defendant has 21 previous records, 14 of which are related to dangerous drugs, 2 of the 14 are trafficking in dangerous drugs, he was last convicted and sentenced for 12 months imprisonment on 15 Jun 20009 for possession of dangerous drugs and discharged on 2 Nov 2009. I consider the defendant to be a persistent offender, the previous sentence plainly is not sufficient to deter him from committing further offences, for this I raise the starting point by 6 months.

The defendant is entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea, I do not consider there to be any mitigating factors called for further reduction.

Order

The defendant is sentenced to 44 months imprisonment.