HKSAR v. HONG SHUN WAH

DCCC130/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 130 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  In this case, the defendant, Mr Hong Shun-wah, faced one count of “Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug”. He pleaded guilty and was convicted upon his plea and the facts as admitted by him in court.

2.  The facts revealed that on 12 November, sometime in the morning, the police, during an anti-narcotics operation, passed by a unit inside in a building in North Point.  They saw the defendant emerging from the unit and their suspicions were aroused by his demeanour, therefore he was stopped and searched, whereupon a transparent resealable plastic bag containing white powder was found in the pocket of his trousers. 

3.  Upon arrest and caution, he admitted possession of the item and that it was for self-consumption.  At the time, he had very little money on him.  Upon further questioning, he admitted that he bought the drugs at the sum of $6,000, intending to consume it by himself. 

4.  The estimated street value of the drugs seized was $32,841.  The bag weighed in total 49.04 grammes containing 15.03 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  The prosecution contended and the defendant admitted that it was used for trafficking. 

5.  Drugs have always been a source of social problems in Hong Kong.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs encouraged a lot of social problems arising from drug addiction.  The courts have been consistent in dealing with trafficking offences and a guideline in the case of Lau Tak Ming and others [1990] 2 HKLR 370 has been set out.   

6.  The present offence involved 15.03 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, that falls into the bracket of 10 to 50 grammes warranting 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.  In the present case, I have not been alerted of any factors which might justify departure from this guideline.     

7.  The prosecution has usefully submitted a statement setting out the defendant’s personal particulars.  The defendant was aged 60, a Hong Kong resident and he had 17 criminal records, 7 of them dangerous drugs related.  He had also one conviction of possession of Part I poison.  Two of the dangerous drugs cases were of the same nature as the present one i.e. trafficking in dangerous drugs.  For the drug offences and other offences he had been sent to DATC on various occasions.  He had also been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a trafficking case in 2004. 

8.  The defence counsel referred to his personal background, none of which contained any reason which might justify, again, my exercise of any leniency.  I do agree that in the present case the quantity involved was on the lower end of the bracket as set out in the guideline and also that the facts of this case did not reveal any active act of trafficking.

9.  For these reasons, I adopted the lower end of the spectrum for this offence by using 5 years as starting point.  As admitted by the defence, in the present case the only valid mitigating factor would be the fact that he pleaded guilty, and as is the practice, I will reduce the sentence by one-third to reflect this factor. 

10.  I have poured over the mitigating factors put forward and the background statement put forward by the prosecution, and I saw no other reasons which would justify any further exercise of leniency.  I therefore order the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 40 months.