HKSAR v. Wong Lin Sang

DCCC 803/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 803 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drug. 

2.On the evening of 3 July 2014, police officers stopped and searched the defendant in Mong Kok.  At the waistband of the defendant’s trousers was found a plastic bag containing 27.99 grammes of a mixture containing 18.67 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  The defendant was arrested and cautioned for trafficking in dangerous drug.

3.Under caution, the defendant claimed that the heroin was for his own consumption.

4.The estimated street value of all the heroin was about HK$22,000.

5.The defendant is aged 61, living on CSSA.  He has 22 records of appearance in court for conviction of 45 charges, out of which five were for trafficking in dangerous drug and seven for possession of dangerous drug.

6.In mitigation, Miss Chan, solicitor for the defendant, asks the court to adopt 5½ years’ imprisonment as the starting point and to give him one-third reduction for his plea of guilty.

7.Trafficking in dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guideline in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370.  For trafficking of heroin of 10 to 50 grammes, the sentencing band is 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

8.I agree with Miss Chan that the appropriate starting point in this case should be 5½ years’ imprisonment.

9.The defendant has five previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drug. 

10.I have raised the issue whether the starting point should be enhanced on the principle of persistent offender. 

11.Having considered all the circumstances and that the defendant’s last conviction for trafficking was back in 2002, ie 12 years ago, I am persuaded that I need not enhance the sentence.

12.I will give the defendant full one-third reduction for his plea of guilty.

13.There is no other mitigating factor in the case.

14.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment.