HKSAR v. SIU YUK LEUNG, VICKY

DCCC 89/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 89 OF 2014

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved is heroin.

Summary of Facts

2. About 7:00 pm on 11 November 2013, the defendant entered Hong Kong through the Lok Mak Chau Control Point.  Customs officers intercepted him at the Customs Arrival Hall and brought him to a search room to conduct a search.

3. The following items were found in a compartment inside the defendant's underpants :-

(i) a plastic bag which contained 3 packets (collectively E1; later found to contain a total of 19.76 grammes of a mixture containing 13.67 grammes of heroin hydrochloride); and

(ii) a plastic bag which contained 1 packet (E2; later found to contain 0.24 gramme of a mixture containing 0.13 gramme of heroin hydrochloride).

4. Under caution, the defendant admitted that E1 and E2 contained heroin.  In his Record of Interview, the defendant admitted that he bought E1 and E2 from an unknown person in Shenzhen at RMB6,000.  He was working as a cleaner earning about $12,000 per month.

5. The defendant now admits that he possessed E1 and E2 for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Mitigation & Sentence

6. The defendant is now 50 and has 10 conviction records, which include 4 "simple possession" offences and 1 "Possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking" offence (which pre-dates R v SIN Yau-ming).

7. Defence lawyer Mr. WONG submitted that the defendant is a heroin addict.  Both E1 and E2 were intended for his own consumption.  He committed the "trafficking" offence simply because he carried the drug across the border.

8. A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" is a serious crime and that drug traffickers would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment even for fresh offenders. 

The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in heroin (see The Queen v LAU Tak-ming & others [1990] 2 HKLR 370). For 10 to 50 grammes, the sentence ranges from 5 to 8 years' imprisonment.

9. In the present case, the defendant trafficked in 13.80 grammes of heroin.  Hence, I adopt 5 years' imprisonment as the starting point.  A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 40 months.  I have borne in mind the comments made by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v MAK Wai-ming [2012] 2 HKLRD 418 on the sentencing of importing drugs for self-consumption.  Based on the defendant's criminal record, I have reasons to believe that he is a drug addict.  Based on the packaging of E1 and E2 and their quantity, I have reasons to believe that they may be for the defendant's own consumption.  Having balanced the latent risk factor and the self-consumption element, I am prepared to grant him a further discount of 8 months.  In other words, the sentence I pass on the defendant is 32 months' imprisonment.