HKSAR v. Lee Kam Wah

DCCC 694/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL ACTION NO 694 OF 2013

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.The drug involved was 11.01 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

Admitted facts

3.On 7 May 2013, the defendant was stopped and searched by police officers in an anti-dangerous drugs operation conducted in the vicinity of Pei Ho Street and Cheung Sha Wan Road.  Upon search, a packet containing 14.03 grammes of a mixture containing 11.01 grammes of heroin hydrochloride was found in his left front trousers pocket.

4.At the scene and in subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant under caution admitted possession of heroin and that he was instructed by someone called “Ah Ying” to deliver the drugs for a reward of HK$300.  He also admitted that he was a drug addict and worked as a causal cleaner earning about HK$300 per day.

5.The street value of the drugs in question was about HK$8,874.

Mitigation

6.The defendant aged 54 was a divorced man who had no contact with his ex-wife for about 15 years.  He was educated up to primary 6.  He worked as cleaner earning about HK$3,000 to 4,000 each month.

7.He had 25 previous criminal convictions, 9 of which were drug-related offences.  In 2006, he was convicted for an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.  His last conviction was for theft in 2008 for which he was sentenced to 2 months.

Sentence

8.For trafficking of heroin, sentencing tariff has been laid down in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370: where narcotic content is 10 to 50 grammes, sentence should range from 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

9.As stated in his antecedent statement, the defendant had been a drug addict since the age of 23. Apparently, he lapsed into the lure of money and became a party to this nefarious trade in order to sustain his drug habit.

10.Of his previous similar conviction in 2006, it is a cardinal principle that no defendant would be punished twice. Nevertheless, in sentencing, I should take into account that his previous sentence failed to deter him from committing similar offence.

11.Having considered everything urged upon me, I find no justification to depart from the usual sentencing tariff. Having considered the quantity involved and all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 5 years and 3 months.  To reflect his guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 42 months.  Apart from that, I see no other mitigating factors that warrant further discount.

12.In the result, the defendant is sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment.