COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 0.7 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 0.55 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride.
Customs officers on an NT narcotics operation saw the defendant alight from a light goods vehicle and intercepted the defendant. After a search of the defendant and of the vehicle the drugs, which is the subject matter of the count, were found in a paper bag which contained a plastic bag containing these two slabs of heroin.
Under caution, the defendant said that someone called a Mr Chan had asked him to take the paper bag to Tai Lin Pai Road and await further instructions by phone and he did not know the full name of the Mr Chan, nor his contact details. However, he admitted under caution that he had delivered goods for this same Mr Chan for three times. The light goods vehicle which he drove was rented from another person.
The drugs were later examined and the street value of the seized drugs at the time of seizure was in the region of HK$527,800.
The defendant is aged 47 and has a clear record. I am told that he is single and in his letter to this court he admitted that he was greedy and had acted rashly and he now is very remorseful, but yet he had the support still of his family and girlfriend. The only mitigation in this case is really the fact that the defendant pleaded guilty.
The defendant is someone whose story and background is no different from many who appear in this court. He is one of many lured by the quick money that they can obtain in order to carry drugs for these drug dealers. Very often, the only, really, mitigation in the circumstances, in order to get a good discount from sentence is for a defendant to assist the Customs or the Police in the arrest of those who instructed him to act in this way. But, yet, in this case, all the defendant can provide is the very common name of a Mr Chan.
The Court of Appeal has said that for drug trafficking offences the fact that a defendant is of a young age or that he has a clear record certainly pales into insignificance when considering the seriousness of this offence.
The Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines in the case of Lau Tak Ming [1990] HKLR 370 that for trafficking in the amount of 400 to 600 grammes of heroin hydrochloride a sentence of 15 to 20 years is merited. In this case, the defendant was trafficking in 550 grammes of heroin hydrochloride which would merit a starting point sentence of 18 to 19 years’ imprisonment.
I do take into account the defendant’s clear record and I will adopt the 18 years’ starting point. Reducing it by one-third the defendant is sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.