HKSAR v. LAU KAM KUK

DCCC1296/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1296 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.  She admitted that in the afternoon on 24 September, 2011, police intercepted her at 20^th floor, Tai Yan House, Tai Yuen Estate, Tai Po, where she was found with a plastic bag containing red and white pellets in her hand.  Government chemist later confirmed that to be 6.08 grammes of a mixture containing 3.68 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.

3.  Under caution, defendant said it was “Pak Fan” and she just wanted to hide the drugs.

4.  Later upon a house search, another 2 plastic bags totalling 27.25 grammes of a mixture containing 17.89 grammes of heroin hydrochloride were also found.  There were also 3 electronic scales, some transparent plastic bags, a pair of scissors, paper bag, plastic bowl and lighter found on a round table with the drugs.

5.  Defendant admitted the drugs were packed by her, and in the subsequent video record of interview she said she bought a packet of “Pak Fan” from “Lee Chai” at $10,000 and she then packed it into 30 pellets, 20 in red, 10 in white; she intended to hide it at the lift lobby if someone wants to buy it.

6.  The majority of the drugs found were possessed for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, and the estimated retail value was about $17,000.

7.  Defendant aged 31, she has 2 previous criminal convictions, one in 2000 for trafficking in dangerous drug where probation order was imposed, while in 2002 she was sent to DATC for possession of dangerous drug.

8.  Mr Stirling submits that the defendant had been working as a saleslady, earning about $8,500, till early 2011 and then was unemployed.  She was very remorseful and wrote a letter to the court stating that she regretted for committing the present offence and promised that it would be the very last one and hoped for a lenient sentence.

9.  Mr Stirling also stated that the defendant would also consume a small quantity of drug found, perhaps about 0.6 to 0.9 gramme per week. 

10.  Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  According to the guideline laid down in HKSAR v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, up to 10 grammes of narcotics, 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment; between 10 to 50 grammes, 5 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

11.  For assessing the appropriate sentence, I also take into account that a small quantity of drugs would be consumed by her.  For Charge 1, involving 3.68 grammes, I adopt 2 years’ imprisonment as a starting point, reducing it to 16 months upon guilty plea.

12.  For Charge 2, involving 17.89 grammes, the appropriate starting point should be about 5½ years, but considering the small part of it would be for her own consumption, and taking into account all the other mitigating factors, I shall only adopt 5 years’ imprisonment as a starting point, reducing it to 40 months upon a guilty plea.

13.  Lastly, for totality principle, all the drugs found from 2 charges originated from the same source, I consider it appropriate to impose a concurrent sentence.  So, in summary:

Charge 1: 16 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 2: 40 months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with Charge 1.

The total sentence for 2 charges is 40 months’ imprisonment.