Case Document

100%

DCCC 964/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 964 OF 2013

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

	HKSAR
	v
	TANG KWOK TUNG

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

Before:

Deputy District Judge Louisa Lai

Date:

19 December 2013 at 10:00 am

Present:	Ms Lisa Go, Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
	Mr Li Kwong Choi Albert, of Wong & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for defendant

Offence:

Trafficking in dangerous drug（販運危險藥物）

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “Trafficking in dangerous drugs”, namely 4.99 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 4.72 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (‘ice’) and 12.99 grammes of a mixture containing 7.32 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (‘heroin’).

2.The defendant admitted that on 6 August 2013, police officers conducted a check at “Nam Shan Guesthouse” in Kowloon and found the defendant acting suspiciously when he opened the door of Room 205. Police officers entered Room 205 with the consent of the defendant for enquiry.

3.The police found some transparent resealable plastic bags and an electronic scale on the table. Two of the transparent resealable plastic bags were found to contain a total of 4.72 grammes of ice and three of the transparent resealable plastic bags were found to contain a total of 7.32 grammes of heroin.

4.The defendant was arrested and under caution, he admitted that a man named ‘Ah Lung’ asked him to deliver the dangerous drugs and he was waiting for ‘Ah Lung’s’ telephone instructions on delivery.

5.Upon conducting a search on the defendant, he had cash of HK$3,150 and a mobile phone on him.

6.The defendant was later interviewed by the police under caution by video recording. Under caution, he admitted knowledge of the nature of the dangerous drugs seized from Room 205. He said that earlier that day, he met ‘Ah Lung’ at the methadone centre and he gave him the scale, the empty resealable bags and the dangerous drugs. ‘Ah Lung’ asked him to keep the dangerous drugs and he would collect them later. The defendant would be rewarded for HK$800.

7.The street value of the ice was HK$3,313 and that of the heroin was HK$10,678.

8.The defendant is now 60 years of age. He has 20 previous criminal records which dated from the 1970s, 10 of them are drug related offences and 3 of them are similar to the present offence.

9.In mitigation, Mr Li, representing the defendant submitted to court a mitigation letter written by the defendant. He said that the defendant was remorseful and wanted to turn over a new leaf so that he could take care of his elderly mother who is 89 years old and his three young children, aged between 3 and 11. The defendant pleaded for leniency from the court.

10.The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ‘ice’ (methamphetamine hydrochloride) (see AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125) as amended in HKSAR v Capitania (unreported, CACC 28/2004) and ‘heroin’ (see The Queen v Lau Tak Ming and others [1990] 2 HKLR 370). For trafficking up to 10 grammes of ice, the sentence ranges from 3 to 7 years imprisonment. For trafficking up to 10 grammes of heroin, the sentence ranges from 2 to 5 years imprisonment. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles of trafficking in cocktail drugs stated in HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin and anor [2004] 3 HKC 367 and HKSAR v Wong Kin Kau [2010] 4 HKC 443.

11.The defendant trafficked in a cocktail of drugs consisting of 4.72 grammes of ice and 7.32 grammes of heroin. For the 4.72 grammes of ice, I adopted a starting point of 5 years imprisonment. For 7.32 grammes of heroin, I adopted a starting point of 4 years imprisonment. In the present case, had the whole quantity of the cocktail been the more serious drug (ie 12.04 grammes of ice), the starting point would have been 7 years imprisonment. Based on the nature and quantities of the cocktail components, instead of simply adding 5 years onto 4 years, I consider the “combined” approach would arrive at a realistic and fair sentence.

12.To adequately and accurately reflect the seriousness of the drugs involved, I adopt a starting point of 6 years and 6 months (78 months) imprisonment. Other than the defendant’s plea of guilty, there is no other mitigating circumstance. A one-third discount is given for the plea of guilty, reducing the sentence to 52 months. The defendant is sentenced to 4 years 4 months imprisonment.