HKSAR v. LAM YIN HANG

 DCCC1149/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1149 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Lam Yin-hang, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.  The defendant admits that on the 14th day of August 2009, outside No. 6, Fortress Hill Road, North Point, in Hong Kong, he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 6.2 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

3.  At about 10.55 pm on 14 August 2009, DPC54895, PW1, was patrolling along Fortress Hill Road, North Point, with other police officers. PW1 noticed a private vehicle was parked on the pavement outside No. 6 Fortress Hill Road, North Point, with the defendant seated in the driver’s seat whereas a female was seated in the passenger seat next to the defendant.

4.  PW1 and his colleagues approached the said vehicle and revealed their police identities to the defendant and the female. The defendant and the female were invited to alight from the vehicle.

5.  DSPC13829, PW2, conducted a search on the vehicle. Upon search, he found two packets of suspected dangerous drugs, respectively referred to as P1 and P2, under the driver’s seat of the vehicle.

6.  PW1 arrested the defendant and cautioned him. Under caution, the defendant said, “Nothing to do with the girl. All the things found in the vehicle belong to me.”

7.  Subsequently PW1 conducted a cautioned interview with the defendant. In gist, the defendant claimed the following:

i. P1 and P2 contained “Ice”. They had nothing to do with the female.

ii. P1 and P2 were for the defendant’s own consumption.

iii. The defendant could not recall how he obtained P1 and P2.

iv. The female was the defendant’s girlfriend.

v. The vehicle belonged to the defendant.

vi. The defendant bought the vehicle one month ago from a car dealer.

8.  The Government Chemist later examined P1 and P2 and certified that:

(a) P1 contained 3.33 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 3.28 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (a salt of methamphetamine); and

(b)  P2 contained 2.87 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.82 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

9.  The defendant was the owner of the vehicle. At all material times, he possessed P1 and P2 for the purpose of trafficking.

10.  The defendant has a total of 14 previous convictions recorded against him arising from 10 cases. Six of them were related to dangerous drugs.

11.  The antecedent statement of the defendant reveals that he is now 31 years old. He received education up to Form 3. He was a printing worker between 1993 to 2002, afterwards he worked as a transportation worker until he was arrested. He has a normal health condition but admits that he is a drug addict. He is still single and he lived with his parents at a public housing estate in Tai Po.

12.  Mr Man in mitigation tells me that the defendant is now aged 31. He used to be a driver, earning $8,000 to $9,000 per month. He would give $3,000 to his parents. He resides with his parents at a public housing estate. He is very remorseful for what he had done. He told the police that the drugs were for his own consumption in his cautioned statement. He had co-operated with the police, and he admitted his guilt in court. He pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.

13.  Mr Man read out the contents of a mitigation letter written by the defendant, in which the defendant states he is prepared to face the consequences and will accept full responsibility for what he had done. The defendant is concerned about his aging parents. He promises that he would become a good citizen upon release.

14.  In sentencing the defendant, I have considered the nature and the quantity of the drugs in question. I have considered the facts of this case.

15.  It seems to me the explanations put forward by the defendant in his cautioned statement are not credible. The defendant claimed P1 and P2 were for his own consumption but yet he could not recall how he obtained the drugs. I find the defendant’s explanation incredible. In any event, the defendant admits before me today that he possessed P1 and P2 for the purpose of trafficking.

16.  The defendant expresses his concern about his aging parents. In my view, the defendant should have thought about the welfare of his aging parents before he committed the present offence.

17.  Looking at the criminal record of the defendant, the defendant had been incarcerated on many occasions in the past. He must have known the effect of his incarceration on his parents.

18.  Looking at the criminal record of the defendant again, it is obvious that he had been a drug addict for over a decade. Being a man who has been tormented by the effects of drugs for many years, it does not give the defendant any excuse at all to engage in drug trafficking activities.

19.  The defendant is now serving a DATC Order made on 8 September this year. I am told that the defendant committed the present case while he was on police bail for the possession of DD case for which he was sentenced to DATC.

20.  This case concerned 6.1 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, what is commonly known as “Ice”. Following the tariff as set down in the case of Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung, the quantity of drugs involved in the present case brings this case within the band of sentence of 3 to 7 years' imprisonment. In my judgment, a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment is appropriate in the present case.

21.  For the guilty plea entered by the defendant, the defendant is entitled to a one-third reduction. Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant, I can see no other mitigating factors which can further reduce the sentence.

22.  For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 32 months’ imprisonment.