HKSAR v. Lee Ngau Chai

DCCC 1193/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1193 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in 1.53 grammes of heroin hydrochloride on 30 August 2012. Having been released on police bail, he was re‑arrested on 14 September again for trafficking, this time the amount was 3.42 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant state that on 30 August, the police were conducting an anti-narcotic operation in Yau Ma Tei when they spotted the defendant acting furtively outside the ground floor of the Yau Ma Tei Jockey Club Polyclinic on Battery Street in Yau Ma Tei.  He was intercepted by the police and in his front left trouser pocket they found 18 packets of drugs, the subject of the 1st charge.  He had just over $2,000 in his possession and the street value of the drugs was $2,650.

3.He was released on bail for the first offence and on 14 September, he was again observed by officers conducting an anti-narcotic operation on the afternoon of 14 September again outside the Yau Ma Tei Jockey Club Polyclinic.  On this occasion, he had 22 packets of drugs in his right palm.  The drugs are the subject of the 2nd charge.  He was found in possession of just over $1,000 in Hong Kong dollars and other foreign currency.  The street value of the drugs was just over $2,800.

4.He told the police he had been unemployed for three months, has one child and has been living off his savings. 

5.The defendant has a clear record.  I am told that he is 27 years of age and he came to Hong Kong in 2002.  He is married with a 2-and-a-half-year-old son, and both his wife and son live on the mainland.  The defendant, who is educated to Primary 6 standard on the mainland, lives alone in Hong Kong.  He has worked variously as a hawker and a casual construction worker earning in the region of $7,000 per month from which he has made financial contributions to support his family on the mainland.

6.The defendant has written a letter expressing his remorse for his involvement in these offences and has stated that his wife and son and parents are heartbroken and disappointed with his involvement in these matters.  He claims in his letter that he is committed to turning over a new leaf.  However, given the fact that he was released on bail and committed exactly the same offence two weeks later, I was somewhat sceptical about that assertion.  

7.The principal mitigating feature of this case are that he has a clear record and has pleaded guilty to the offence.  The aggravating features are that he commits both offences outside the Yau Ma Tei Jockey Club Polyclinic and commits the second offence whilst on bail for the first offence.

8.In respect of the first offence, I take a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment; in respect of the second, a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled to a reduction in sentence to reflect his guilty pleas to both offences.  So the sentences for each offence will be 16 months and 24 months respectively.

9.I have to consider the question of totality. The general rule is that sentences for offences committed on bail will be ordered to be served consecutively to the sentences for the original offences for which the defendant was arrested.  However, having considered the total quantity of drugs involved and the sentencing tariff, I have decided that 16 months on Charge 2 should run consecutive to the sentence on Charge 1.  The defendant will therefore go to prison for 32 months.