HKSAR v. NGUYEN HUNG QUE

DCCC 687/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 687 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

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

2.  The particulars are that on 2nd May 2014 on Reclamation Street in Mongkok, the defendant unlawfully trafficked 27.87 grammes of a mixture containing 11.82 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. 

3.  On that day, at about 5 pm, a police officer astutely noticed the defendant walking along the street in an awkward manner.  This was a stop-and-search case. 

4.  The police officer during the search found one packet of white powder, the heroin, inside the defendant’s underpants. 

5.  Under caution, the defendant told the police officer the drugs was for self-consumption.  However, later, and again under caution he admitted that he had bought the heroin for himself and five or six other people.  He told the police that he purchased the drugs for HK$15,000. He told the police, as an addict, he would consume heroin several times a day. He also told the police that he was a casual worker earning several thousand dollars working a couple of days a month.  

6.  It is agreed that the retail value of the heroin was $21,200 odd.

7.  The defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty.

8.  The defendant came to Hong Kong as a Vietnamese refugee when he was only 16 years old; he is now 48.  His life of crime began in 1993 with his first conviction.  Thereafter, he has been convicted of 22 previous convictions.  Many of those relate to offences of dishonesty.  More pertinently, eight relate to dangerous drugs offences of which one is a trafficking dangerous drugs offence where he was convicted in 2003. 

9.  Mr Wong for the defendant has submitted, upon instructions, that the defendant paid for one-fifth of the dangerous drugs in this case.  He put in $3,000 as did four other addicts, and the defendant took the $15,000 to buy the dangerous drugs.  The plan would be he would share it out after he had paid for it. 

10.  The prosecution have referred me to the authority of HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau CACC366 & 487/2000.  That case refers to what are relevant factors for the court to consider when accepting a portion of drugs in a charge would be for a defendant’s own consumption.

11.  In this case the defendant did tell the police in an interview that he was given money by others to go and purchase heroin. The fact he has previous convictions for drug-related offences do support the submission he is a drug addict.  He has been sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre order on numerous occasions.  The defendant says when he was arrested, he had just purchased the drugs. 

12.  I will accept that he did buy drugs for others and that he did buy some for himself being one-fifth of the quantity. One-fifth of 11.82 grammes is 2.36 grammes; the balance 9.46 grammes was purchased for others.  These figures are significant when one considers the guidelines for sentencing heroin. 

13.  The authority of The Queen v Lau Tat Ming [1992] HKLR 370 sets out guidelines for heroin.  And in that authority where between 10 to 50 grammes of heroin is trafficked, an appropriate starting point would be between 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

14.  I take into account the facts of the case, the total quantity of heroin, the quantity the defendant said he bought for his own consumption, the guidelines of that authority and the mitigation put forward.

15.  Defendant, please stand up.  I will after considering all those factors take a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea.  Therefore, for this offence, the defendant is sentenced to 3 years 4 months’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understood.