|
HCCC 483/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 483 OF 2014
-----------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
NA. Nakornpanom Kanasap |
|
| ------------------ |
| Before: |
Hon Anthea Pang J |
| Date: |
16 February 2015 at 10.05 am |
| Present: |
Miss Rosaline Leung, SADPP(Ag) of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Kwan Tong-lee, instructed by Fu & Cheng, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the accused |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT:
Background and the facts
On 14 November 2014, the defendant pleaded guilty in the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to sections (4)(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. He was committed to this court for sentence.
This morning, the defendant confirmed before me his plea and his acceptance of the Summary of Facts. Briefly, the facts were these.
On 1 June 2014, the defendant was detained for Customs clearance on arrival at the Hong Kong International Airport from Kuala Lumpur. Upon searching the defendant’s travel bag, two packets containing the drug particularised in the count, that is a total of 1.91 kilogrammes of a mixture containing 0.86 kilogrammes of heroin hydrochloride and 0.34 kilogrammes of 6-monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride, were found in a concealed compartment.
The drugs seized had a retail value of about HK$1.37 million.
Mitigation
The defendant is a Thai male and is aged 24. He reported that he was single and had attained secondary level of education. The defendant did not have any prior criminal conviction record in Hong Kong.
In mitigation, Mr Kwan told the court that the defendant had an unfortunate childhood. At the time of the defendant’s birth, his parents had already separated. He was then taken care of by his mother alone until the age of 9. Then, his mother passed away and he was, thereafter, looked after by his grandmother.
Having finished Form 6, the defendant had several gainful employments. However, at the time of the offence, the defendant was unemployed.
Mr Kwan explained on the defendant’s behalf that he committed the present offence because of the promise of a reward of HK$12,000.
The defendant has a son, aged 4, who is now living with his separated girlfriend. It was said that, therefore, the defendant required the money in order to make contributions for his son’s maintenance.
The sentence
The tariffs for trafficking in heroin were laid down in R v Lau Tak Ming& Ors [1992] HKLR 370, and in HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437. For trafficking between 600 and 1,200 grammes of heroin, a term of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment is called for.
In the present case, although other than heroin, the drug of monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride was also involved, but as observed in HKSAR v Rajabu CACC 493/2012 (8 May 2013, unreported), both substances can be termed salts of esters of morphine. In other words, monoacetylmorphine hydrochloride is similar in potency with that of heroin hydrochloride, and this had already been set out in the Summary of Facts which was accepted by the defendant.
In the circumstances, the Abdallah guidelines are applicable for both drugs which had a total weight of 1.2 kilogrammes. Further, in the case of Abdallah, the Court of Appeal stated that when an international element is involved in the trafficking, then for amounts above one kilogramme, an enhancement of not less than two years is appropriate.
Having considered the facts of this case and the amount of drugs involved, I take the view that an initial starting point of 23 years is appropriate.
Moreover, as the defendant took the drug into Hong Kong, there was certainly an international element regarding his trafficking act. For this, I would enhance the starting point by a further 2 years, making the overall starting point one of 25 years.
The defendant pleaded guilty. He will receive a one-third reduction for that.
Certainly, commission of such a grave offence for economic reasons is not a mitigating factor. Therefore, other than the defendant’s plea, there is nothing which would warrant any further reduction in sentence.
The defendant is, therefore, to serve a term of 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for this offence.
|