HKSAR v. LAW KWOK HUNG

DCCC886/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 886 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was convicted accordingly.

2.  The facts of the case are straight forward.  On 3rd June 2011, a party of police officers spotted the defendant on Ground Floor of Golden Cloud Court, Ferry Street, Yau Ma Tei.  The defendant was intercepted.  Upon body search on the defendant, the police found a plastic bag containing two smaller plastic bags (Exhibit E1 and E2).

3.  Chemical analysis revealed that Exhibit E1, contained 41 packets (described by the Chemical in the certificate as plastic wrappings) containing a total of 6.07 grammes of a mixture containing 5.08 grammes of heroin hydrochloride while Exhibit E2 was found to have 41 packets (consisting of plastic wrappings) containing a total of 6.06 grammes of a mixture containing 5.08 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (Charge 1).

4.  The defendant was then escorted back to his residence at Flat A, 13/ F, Golden Cloud Court.  Inside the drawer of a cupboard in the premises, the police found:

1. a red plastic bag containing 13 plastic bags containing a total of 226.24 grammes of a powder containing caffeine,

2. a metal box containing 35 packets (consisting of plastic wrappings) containing a total of 8.12 grammes of a mixture containing 6.58 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (Exhibit E3).

3. a re-sealable transparent plastic bag containing 11 grammes of a mixture containing 6.47 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (Exhibit E4).

4. an electronic scale.

5.  Upon caution, the defendant admitted that he was going to sell Exhibit E1 and E2 to drug addicts near Yung Shue Tau.  He also admitted that Exhibit E3 and E4 belonged to him.  Subsequently, the defendant in the video recorded interview further admitted that Exhibit E1 to E4 are heroin. He used $13,000 to buy the drug.  He would repacked the drugs into smaller packets of 0.5 grammes each and sell the drugs for $120.

Mitigation

6.  The defendant is now 63 years old and lives on CSSA.   He had only one conviction of managing a vice establishment back in August 2001 for which the defendant was jailed for 3 months and suspended for 2 years.  He had no conviction relating to dangerous drugs.  When asked, the court was informed that the defendant is not a drug addict. 

7.  He suffered an injury back in 1999 and a stroke in 2010.  The defendant suffered another stroke lately and sustained certain injuries.  The defendant cooperated fully with the police upon arrest.  The defendant also tendered a mitigation letter in Chinese and expressed his remorsefulness. The defendant was a member of the Civil Aid Service.

Sentence

8.  The defendant claimed that he used $13,000 to buy the drugs while he was living under social security allowance.  The court was informed that when the defendant was arrested, he had $1,000 cash and one mobile phone with him.  The prosecution could not provide an estimate of the street value of the drugs so seized. 

9.  The defendant admitted that he would repack the drugs into smaller packets of 0.5 grammes each.  I notice that there was no discovery of a large number of empty smaller plastic bags, except an electronic scale, in the defendant’s premises.  The drugs so seized in fact had been packaged into a total of 117 packets (Exhibit E1 to E3) and E4 contained a larger quantity of heroin in one bag. 

10.  Above all, 13 plastic bags of powder containing caffeine were found.  All these factors point at the level of culpability of the defendant in this trafficking activity.

11.  The only substantial mitigation of the defendant is his wise decision to plead guilty to the charges, and that entitles him to have a one-third discount in sentence.  In normal circumstance, trafficking of heroin involving 10 grammes to 50 grammes attracts a sentence between 5 to 8 years. 

12.  The 1st charge involves 10.16 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  Hence, I would adopt 5 years as the starting point.  With the defendant’s plea, the sentence is reduced to 40 months.  Although it involved more drugs in respect of the 2nd charge (that is 13.05 grammes of heroin hydrochloride), I would also adopt 5 years as the starting point.  I reduce the sentence to 40 months.

13.  In fact the two charges involved a total quantity of 23.21 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.  I have to consider the totality principle and order that 8 months of the second sentence be served consecutively to the first sentence.  That is to say, I sentence the defendant to a total of 48 months.