HKSAR v. Wong Ku
|
DCCC6/2012 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 6 OF 2012 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.The defendant enters a plea of guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, laid against him under section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134, and to one charge of possession of equipment fit and intended for inhalation of a dangerous drug, preferred under section 36(1) and (2) of the same Ordinance. Facts 2.The facts to which the defendant agrees are as follows. 3.On the day of the offence, a team of police officers laid in ambush at a location near the entrance of the defendant’s residence. 4.The officers saw a man knock and the defendant answer the door. The man handed over some money to the defendant who in return passed a white object to him. 5.The police operation turned overt, and the defendant was arrested. A search was then conducted at his home, in which were found -
6.The defendant admitted to the police having sold a pallet of heroin to the man for $150 and that the $6,000 he had with him were drug proceeds. Conviction 7.The court finds the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant has had 11 records before his current conviction, three of which are drug-related, but none for trafficking in a dangerous drug. Mitigation 8.In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration. 9.The defendant, now in his early fifties, was born on the mainland where he received up to Form Three education. He came to live in Hong Kong in 1980 and became a construction site worker. 10.In the 1990’s, his income averaged about $20,000 a month. He got married on the mainland and a son and a daughter were born into the family. 11.In 2000, he was retrenched due to the then prevailing economic situation, and worse, he became a drug addict. Counsel submits that in that period of his life, the defendant still managed to obtain a part-time job as a debris removal worker, making $800 a day. 12.In 2004, his family joined him in Hong Kong. His wife has since then been working as a cleaning lady. His son has on the other hand worked for two years as a life guard. They represented the sources of his family income, while the defendant stayed home to take care of the household chores. 13.Between 2001 and 2010, the defendant has been sent to the DATC six times, but his drug addiction remains. 14.It was at the suggestion of his friend in 2010, counsel explains, that the defendant got himself involved in drug trafficking, and thus the commission of the offence in Charge 1. 15.Counsel asks the court to grant the defendant the usual one-third discount on his plea of guilty. Further, counsel asks the court to be as lenient as the circumstances of this case would allow in sentencing the defendant, having particular regard to the defendant’s co-operative attitude towards the police and in these proceedings. Discussion 16.Drug abuse poses a constant threat to the well-being of the society; no one should be in any doubt about this. It ruins families, and breeds crimes, ad hoc and organized. It wrecks a person’s life, sometimes beyond hope and repair. 17.Having been sent to the DATC on repeated occasions, the defendant’s personal experience bears witness to the harmful effect drug abuse can have on the person. 18.Even those who have successfully fought and overcome their addiction, which is itself a most painful process, their personalities and emotional make-up can be marred for life; employment opportunities for them are very often limited; and prospects of their reintegration into the society are grim. 19.Drug addicts, and ex-addicts alike, would often find themselves living in dire poverty over sustained periods and a life without self-esteem. In terms of social cost and loss, the society suffers beyond measure. 20.Drug traffickers are responsible for the spread of this vice habit. The duty is upon the court to play its part in the fight against drug trade, to see to it that no one would be in any doubt that the society does not tolerate criminal conducts involving drug deals. 21.Heroin is highly addictive and has been recognized as a hard drug that has plagued the society for a long time. The Court of Appeal has laid down a sentence guideline, which has been consistently applied in courts of Hong Kong. For the amount of heroin in which the defendant has trafficked in this case, an appropriate starting point would be one of four years’ imprisonment. There is no justification to depart from this guideline. 22.As to the offence of possession of equipment fit and intended for inhalation of dangerous drugs, a starting point of three months is warranted. 23.The defendant has had 11 criminal records prior to his current conviction and has been imprisoned before. He should be fully aware of the serious consequences of any fresh offending. Apart from his guilty pleas, nothing in the defendant’s personal and family circumstances would warrant any further reduction in sentence. Conclusion 24.The appropriate starting point for Charge 1 is one of four years’ imprisonment which is reduced by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea to one of two years and eight months’ imprisonment. A starting point of three months is adopted for Charge 2, which is likewise reduced by one-third to two months. 25.Having considered the principle of totality, the court orders that the two sentences should run concurrently. Order 26.The defendant is sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment of two years and eight months.
|