HKSAR v. Leung Tat Ming

DCCC914/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 914 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant had pleaded not guilty to one count of trafficking dangerous drugs. He was convicted after trial. The quantity of trafficked drugs here in this case is heroin with a purity of 4.49 grammes.

2.I am told the defendant is a drug addict and has been one on and off for at least the last 20 years.  He has 18 previous convictions, many of them related to drugs.  This is his first trafficking dangerous drugs conviction.  I have found that he has admitted selling the dangerous drugs for a third party for a commission. 

3.The defendant is 51 years old, single, and lives alone. 

4.Trafficking dangerous drugs is a very serious offence.  Drugs are the scourge of our society.  It is like a cancer that does not stop spreading.  That is why the courts deal with trafficking in dangerous drugs very seriously and with long terms of imprisonment. 

5.Trafficking in drugs will have guidelines. Where heroin is concerned I will consider the guidelines set out in the R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370.  What is relevant from that guideline is where there is up to 10 grammes of heroin trafficked, a two to five year term of imprisonment would be appropriate.    

6.The defendant accused, during the course of the trial, everybody of framing him.  He accused not only police officers of serious assaults, but Correctional Services Department’s officers of framing him as well.  He even suggested the Duty Lawyer and the Duty Lawyer Scheme were perhaps acting negligently and not doing their job properly.  Ultimately I exonerate all witnesses.  I do not believe the allegations put forward by the defendant.

7.I do not intend to repeat the facts of the case in full.  I dealt with them in detail in my verdict.  What I am sure of is that the defendant was standing in the street openly selling heroin for a commission.  He was very blatantly trafficking, and the facts are serious. 

8.I have considered mitigation, the defendant’s background, facts of the case, the evidence against the defendant, quantity of the dangerous drugs and its nature, and ultimately the guidelines of the R v Lau Tak Ming authority.  I take a starting point of 3 years and 4 months, according to the guidelines.  I see no reason to give the defendant any further discount. 

9.Defendant is sentenced for this charge to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

Please refer to CACC16/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.

Please refer to CACC16/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.

Please refer to CACC16/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.

Please refer to CACC16/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.