HKSAR v. LEE TIN LUNG, PAUL

HCCC 21/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 21 OF 2015

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to Count 1 on the Indictment on the first day of trial. The prosecution offered no evidence on Count 2 of the Indictment after a 4-day voir dire.

The Particulars of Offence for Count 1 provide that on 11 March 2014, at the staircase of Kan Yip Building, 225-237 Castle Peak Road – Yuen Long, Yuen Long, New Territories in Hong Kong, the defendant had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely 0.11 gramme of a mixture containing heroin.

The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides as follows:

“1. On the evening of 11 March 2014, plain clothed police officers, including DPC4529 and DPC54432, saw the defendant walking down the staircase of Kan Yip Building at 225-237 Castle Peak Road, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong.

2. The defendant put something into his mouth and appeared to swallow it. The officers approached the defendant, intercepted him and searched him. Suspecting that the defendant had swallowed some dangerous drugs the officers made investigations of the defendant.

3. The defendant was taken to Pok Oi Hospital and then onto Yuen Long Police Station for further investigation.

4. The defendant was kept under close watch at the police station. The defendant was then remanded into Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre where he was kept under close supervision in an isolation ward. On 16 March, the defendant excreted a packet of suspected dangerous drugs wrapped in white tape. The suspected dangerous drugs was sealed in a tamper-proof envelope and sent to the Government Chemist for analysis.

5. The Government Chemist confirmed that the dangerous drugs swallowed by the defendant contained 0.11 gramme of a mixture containing heroin.”

By way of personal background, the defendant is 40 years of age. He received education up to Form 3 level. At the time of arrest, the defendant was single and unemployed.

The defendant has 25 previous convictions, three of which were for possession of dangerous drugs. For those offences, the defendant was respectively put on probation, fined and sentenced to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

I am fully aware that in view of his previous record, usually a sentence other than a non-custodial sentence would be appropriate for the offence for which the defendant has been convicted. However, the defendant has been remanded in custody in this case since March 2014 (ie, for a period of about 21 months). Further, the defendant must by now be drug-free after such a long period of remand in custody.

In the special circumstances of this case, I consider that it would not be appropriate or fair to further remand the defendant in custody for a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report pursuant to section 54A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

For the reasons stated above, I consider that a fine is the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I impose a fine of $2,000 for the offence of possession of a dangerous drug, being Count 1 of the Indictment. That is after a one-third discount for the defendant’s guilty plea.

For the avoidance of doubt, this sentence should not be considered a precedent sentence for the offence in question in respect of an offender with a criminal record similar to the defendant. As has been explained above, I consider that a fine is appropriate only in view of the special circumstances of this case.