HKSAR v. Tin Tak Hung

DCCC73/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 73 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.In the present case, the defendant, Tin Tak-hung, is charged with, pleaded guilty to and convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.The facts as admitted by him in open court revealed that at about 10 pm on the 21st day of November last year, whilst on uniform patrol duties, the police officers found the defendant acting suspiciously in the sitting-out area near 512 Shanghai Street, Mong Kok.  They decided to stop and search him.  Inside his right front trouser pocket, the police officer found two cigarette boxes containing a total of 84 pellets of a powdery substance in white colour.  In addition, a rather substantial amount of money, namely HK$5,741.60 was found in his person. 

3.Under caution, he admitted possession of the drugs.

4.The substance was subsequently analysed by the government chemist.  It was confirmed that the 84 pellets contained a total of 16.96 grammes of a mixture containing 12.73 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

5.In November 2011, the retail value of those drugs amounted to approximately $13,618.00.

6.The prosecution contended that those drugs were for the purpose of trafficking.  By pleading guilty of the charge, the defendant admitted this was the case.

7.Dangerous drugs have always been the source of various social problems and people trafficking in dangerous drugs render such problems worse.  The courts have considered offences of this nature and have set out very clear sentencing guidelines in the form of the decision of Lau Tak Ming and others [1990] 2 HKLR 370.

8.The present case involved 12.73 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  That falls within the bracket of 10 to 50 grammes, warranting 5 to 8 years of imprisonment.  In the present case, I have not been alerted of any factors which might justify departure from this guideline.

9.The prosecution has furnished a proof of a statement of antecedents of the defendant together with the information provided by the defence lawyer Mr Cheng.

10.I have come to know that the defendant is aged 32.  He was born in the mainland but came to live in Hong Kong in 1995.  He lives alone in Hong Kong and his wife, a Chinese resident, is still staying in China.

11.The defendant is not new to the criminal justice system.  In fact, he has a total of 28 convictions, 7 of which relating to dangerous drugs.  In 2005, for a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, he was sentenced to DATC.  I have been also alerted of the fact that he was convicted of a possession of dangerous drugs offence in December last year. Therefore, he committed the present offence while he was on bail in respect of an earlier offence. 

12.From the present circumstances, I do not see anything that might justify my exercise of additional leniency.  I do agree with defence lawyer that the present case falls within the lower end of the bracket of 5 to 8 years, I therefore use 5 years as the starting point. 

13.In the present case the only valid mitigating factor is the fact that he pleaded guilty.  In line with the usual practice, the sentence is therefore reduced to 40 months.  It would be consecutive to the existing sentence.