HKSAR v. LE HUU-NGHI

DCCC561/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 561 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The Charge

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Such offence is contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134.

The Facts

2.  The facts of the case can be summarised as follows.  At about 11.50 am on 6 March 2012, the police was carrying out an anti-drugs operation at Sham Shui Po area.  As the defendant was acting furtively at the vicinity, the police intercepted him.  A plastic bag containing 50 packets of a total of 9.01 grammes of a mixture containing 6.9 grammes of heroin hydrochloride was found underneath the defendant’s jeans near the front buckle.

3.  The defendant was arrested.  Under caution, he admitted that he helped another person to deliver the 50 packets of white powder for a reward of $200. 

4.  The street value of the said drug was estimated to be $7,500.  At that time, the defendant had HK$3,990.10 and RMB10 with him.  

The Defendant’s Background and Mitigation

5.  The defendant, aged 52, is a Vietnamese.  He used to be a construction worker on a casual basis.  He was a drug addict and started consuming heroin in year 2000.  He was unemployed and had been a recipient of CSSA in the sum of $3,000 per month. 

6.  The defendant has an appalling criminal record. He has 22 previous convictions of some 30 offences.  As early as in 1991, he had been in and out of prisons on numerous occasions.  His last conviction was in August 2011 and was released from prison in October 2011.  In less than half a year of his last release, he committed the present offence.  This is the fourth time that he was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

7.  The defendant claimed that he intended to reserve less than 1 gramme of the said drugs for his own consumption, but the remaining larger portion of the said drugs was for sale in order to fund his trip to Vietnam for family reunion.

8.  Apart from his plea, this court sees no remorse from the defendant.  He has no determination to start anew nor turn over a new leaf despite many chances were given to him by the courts in the past.

Sentencing Guidelines

9.  The Court of Appeal in R v Lau Tak Ming & Another CACC230 of 1989 laid down sentencing tariffs for trafficking in heroin after trial.  For up to 10 grammes of heroin, 2 to 5 years of imprisonment is called for. 

Sentence

10.  Trafficking in heroin is a serious offence.  By looking at the criminal record of the defendant, it is obvious that the defendant was a drug addict for many years.  The court accepts that less than a gramme of the heroin in question found on the defendant was intended for his own consumption.

11.  Having taken into consideration of the circumstances of the case and that of the defendant, the quantity of heroin involved, the defence mitigation and the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal, an initial starting point of 51 months’ imprisonment would be adopted. This court will give the defendant a reduction of 6 months to 45 months for the mitigating factor of self‑consumption.  The defendant is also entitled to a one-third discount for his plea of guilty and thereby reduce the sentence to 30 months’ imprisonment.  There were no other mitigating factors which would justify further reduction in sentence. 

12.  This court now imposes a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.