HKSAR v. Ho Yan Yu
|
DCCC695/2012 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 695 OF 2012 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.Defendant is convicted, after trial, of unlawfully trafficking 11.91 grammes of heroin. I rejected the defendant’s evidence that he was in possession of this amount of heroin for his own use and self-consumption, not trafficking, and accordingly convicted him of the original charge. 2.I do not intend to repeat the facts of the case. I gave full reasons in my verdict. In short, I am sure at a routine road block the police found the defendant in a taxi as a passenger in possession of two packets of heroin. In each packet were 20 blue pellets and 20 white pellets of heroin. The difference in colour was the quantity in each pellet. The 80 pellets in total were valued at $11,200. I found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had possession of the dangerous drugs for the purposes of trafficking. 3.The defendant is 34 years old, and I have heard in mitigation that he was educated to Form 3 level, and unfortunately being a drug abuser since 1997. He has been in and out of institutions since then for either offences of dishonesty or possession of dangerous drug. He has no previous convictions for trafficking dangerous drugs. 4.Trafficking heroin is governed by the authority of the R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370. The Court of Appeal set out guidelines for trafficking heroin in that authority. Where 10 to 50 grammes of heroin is trafficked, a sentence of 5 to 8 years would be appropriate. 5.Defendant, please stand up. I have considered the mitigation before me, the facts of the case and the quantity of heroin, and after considering the relevant authority, I find the starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment appropriate. This was a conviction after trial and there is no further discount from this starting point appropriate. Accordingly the defendant is sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment for this offence.
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 695/2012