HKSAR v. Yeung Siu Ki

DCCC 291/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 291 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The Defendant admits possession for the purpose of trafficking a quantity of heroin, methamphetamine (“ice”), and midazolam. 

2.In the late afternoon of 20 January 2011, the police intercepted the Defendant, who was using keys to open the doors of a unit on the first floor of a building in Mong Kok.  He admitted living in Room C of the unit.  Upon entry, a search of a rack near the door yielded the following items:

(a) 4 bags and 8 packets of heroin;

(b) 1 bag of “ice”;

(c) 1 packet containing 1 tablet of midazolam;

(d) 18 plastic bags;

(e) 1 electronic scale.

3.He had $3,222.10 and US$1 cash on him.  The police arrested and cautioned him.  His response included the following:

(a) He denied living in Room C;

(b) He only went to Room C to inhale “ice”;

(c) He owned the “ice” for self-consumption.

4.There were 26.19 g of a mixture containing 23.75 g of heroin, 6.98 g of a crystalline solid containing 6.89 g of “ice”, and 0.01 g of midazolam.  The estimated street value was $24,760. 

Personal background and mitigation put forward

5.The Defendant is now 47 years of age.  He has lost his job as a casual driver a few months before arrest.  He has to support his wife and 2 young sons.  He committed the present offence due to financial strain.  He has accumulated many drug-related records since 1985. He hooked up with “ice” 8 years ago.  He has 1 record for trafficking in 1996 and 2 others in 2006.  He was released from jail in June 2008 for the last trafficking.  I do not regard him a recidivist trafficker.   

6.His solicitor submits he possessed the midazolam and “ice” for self-consumption.  I am prepared to disregard the 1 tablet of midazolam.  The prosecution relies on the lack of paraphernalia to consume the “ice” as sufficient evidence to prove trafficking.  As it requires only a simple contraption to be made for consumption of “ice” and the Defendant’s experience in consumption of “ice” for 8 years is not negatived, I do not find the case of trafficking in “ice” proved by the prosecution.   

Sentencing guidelines

7.In The Queen v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, the Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for traffickers in heroin. For a narcotic quantity of 10 – 50 g, the sentence shall be 5 – 8 years. 

Sentencing the Defendant

8.Based on Lau Tak-ming, the quantity was in the band of 5 – 8 years’ imprisonment.  I now take a starting point of 6 years for the heroin trafficking.  I am aware of the latent risk of “ice” possessed by the Defendant here but its attending sentence can be sufficiently subsumed under the starting point of 6 years for heroin trafficking.  The midazolam is de minimis. I give him one-third discount for his plea of guilty.  The sentence is 4 years.