|
DCCC 291/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 291 OF 2011
---------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
YEUNG SIU-KI |
|
| --------------------- |
| Before : |
H.H. Judge E. Yip |
| Date : |
6 May 2011 at 12:35 p.m. |
| Present: |
Mr. Cheung Man Kwan, Bobby, Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR.
Mr. Chan Ming Fai, Arthur, of M/s. Rowland Chow, Chan & Co. assigned by DLA for Defendant. |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物) |
--------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
--------------------------
Charge and facts
1. The Defendant admits possession for the purpose of trafficking a quantity of heroin, methamphetamine (“ice”), and midazolam.
2. In the late afternoon of 20 January 2011, the police intercepted the Defendant, who was using keys to open the doors of a unit on the first floor of a building in Mong Kok. He admitted living in Room C of the unit. Upon entry, a search of a rack near the door yielded the following items:
(a) 4 bags and 8 packets of heroin;
(b) 1 bag of “ice”;
(c) 1 packet containing 1 tablet of midazolam;
(d) 18 plastic bags;
(e) 1 electronic scale.
3. He had $3,222.10 and US$1 cash on him. The police arrested and cautioned him. His response included the following:
(a) He denied living in Room C;
(b) He only went to Room C to inhale “ice”;
(c) He owned the “ice” for self-consumption.
4. There were 26.19 g of a mixture containing 23.75 g of heroin, 6.98 g of a crystalline solid containing 6.89 g of “ice”, and 0.01 g of midazolam. The estimated street value was $24,760.
Personal background and mitigation put forward
5. The Defendant is now 47 years of age. He has lost his job as a casual driver a few months before arrest. He has to support his wife and 2 young sons. He committed the present offence due to financial strain. He has accumulated many drug-related records since 1985. He hooked up with “ice” 8 years ago. He has 1 record for trafficking in 1996 and 2 others in 2006. He was released from jail in June 2008 for the last trafficking. I do not regard him a recidivist trafficker.
6. His solicitor submits he possessed the midazolam and “ice” for self-consumption. I am prepared to disregard the 1 tablet of midazolam. The prosecution relies on the lack of paraphernalia to consume the “ice” as sufficient evidence to prove trafficking. As it requires only a simple contraption to be made for consumption of “ice” and the Defendant’s experience in consumption of “ice” for 8 years is not negatived, I do not find the case of trafficking in “ice” proved by the prosecution.
Sentencing guidelines
7. In The Queen v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, the Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for traffickers in heroin. For a narcotic quantity of 10 – 50 g, the sentence shall be 5 – 8 years.
Sentencing the Defendant
8. Based on Lau Tak-ming, the quantity was in the band of 5 – 8 years’ imprisonment. I now take a starting point of 6 years for the heroin trafficking. I am aware of the latent risk of “ice” possessed by the Defendant here but its attending sentence can be sufficiently subsumed under the starting point of 6 years for heroin trafficking. The midazolam is de minimis. I give him one-third discount for his plea of guilty. The sentence is 4 years.
|