A A
DCCC1077/2010
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1077 OF 2010 C
D
---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v.
F Lam Sai Sing F
G ---------------------- G
Before: H H Judge Anthea Pang
H Date: 1 November 2010 at 11.20 am H
Present: Ms Monica Chan, PP of the Department of Justice, for
HKSAR
I Mr Peter Chan of Messrs. K.F. Chan & Co, assigned by I
the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
J Offence: (1) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) J
(2) Possession of offensive weapons (管有攻擊性武器)
K --------------------- K
L Reasons for Sentence L
---------------------
M M
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of
N N
trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and
O (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and one charge of O
possession of offensive weapons, contrary to section 17 of the
P Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228. P
Q Q
2. The facts are simple. On 21 July 2010, while the
police were executing a search warrant on the rooftop of Cheung
R R
On Mansion, Kwun Tong, the defendant was seen coming out from
S the premises. He was therefore brought back to the premises and, S
on his person, some keys were found. One of the keys was then
T used to open the padlock of a desk drawer. Inside the drawer, T
three plastic bags containing a total of 119 packets of heroin
U U
hydrochloride were found. The drug was that particularized in
1 DCCC1077/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
the charge, that is, a total of 25.72 grammes of a mixture
containing 15.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Paraphernalia
B B
like an electronic scale, a wad of white plastic sheets and a
C wad of resealable plastic bags were found alongside the drug. C
This is the subject matter of the first charge.
D D
3. Upon further search, two machetes, three beef knives,
E E
three survival knives, one Kukri knife, one fruit knife and one
iron pipe with blade were found being covered by a piece of
F F
cloth and placed in the lower shelf of a cabinet. This is the
G subject matter of the second charge. G
H 4. The defendant is aged 46 and is now separated from his H
wife. He received education up to Primary 6 and worked as a
I I
casual construction site worker, earning about HK$6,000 per
month at the time of his arrest. Since 1979, he has been before
J J
the court on 15 previous occasions and has got convictions in
K
respect of various offences, including possession of a dangerous K
drug, theft, burglary and assaulting a police officer. In April
L 2001, he was sentenced to DATC for two counts of trafficking in L
a dangerous drug. In February this year, he was again sentenced
M to DATC for possession of a dangerous drug and assaulting a M
police officer. The defendant was recently released on 25 June
N N
2010. Yet, within less than a month, he committed the present
offences.
O O
P 5. In mitigation, Mr. Chan for the defendant said that P
the defendant’s previous trafficking in a dangerous drug
Q convictions were quite dated and were not serious ones as he was Q
only sent to the DATC for those offences. Therefore, he should
R R
not be regarded as one who has a bad record in trafficking drugs.
It was also said on behalf of the defendant that the offensive
S S
weapons found in his possession were stored inside a cabinet in
T his own private premises. As the defendant possessed these T
weapons with the intent to use the same for safeguarding
U purposes in the course of his trafficking in the dangerous drug, U
2 DCCC1077/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
the two offences could be described as part and parcel of the
same unlawful enterprise. Concurrent sentences are therefore
B B
asked for.
C C
6. In R v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370, the
D Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in heroin. D
For trafficking between 10 and 50 grammes of narcotic, a term of
E E
imprisonment of 5 to 8 years is called for. In the instant case,
the narcotic involved is 15.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
F F
For this quantity, I consider a starting point of 5½ years to be
G appropriate. G
H 7. I have carefully considered the matters put forth in H
mitigation. Other than the defendant’s pleas, I do not see any
I I
other factors which warrant a reduction in sentence. For charge
(1), I am going to adopt a starting point of 5½ years. The
J J
defendant pleaded guilty and will be given a one-third reduction
K
for that. He is therefore to serve a term of 44 months’ K
imprisonment for this charge.
L L
8. In respect of charge (2), I have examined the weapons
M and found most of them with sharp blades, some with serrated M
edges. The iron pipe with a sharpened blade appears to be self-
N N
made. All these are lethal weapons and it is not an exaggeration
to say that the defendant had with him at home an armoury of
O O
knives. Although they were stored inside the defendant’s
P premises, the defendant admitted that he possessed these weapons P
with the intent to use them for safeguarding purposes in the
Q course of his drug business. I consider this a serious matter in Q
view of the likely harm these weapons could cause to others when
R R
being used and I take the view that a heavy sentence has to be
imposed in order to have deterrent effect. I therefore consider
S S
a starting point of 1½ years to be appropriate. The defendant
T pleaded guilty and will be given one-third reduction for his T
plea. He is therefore to serve a term of 1 year for this charge.
U U
3 DCCC1077/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
The facts in relation to the 2 nd charge are separate and distinct
from those of the first and the sentences should run
B B
consecutively. However, having considered the totality principle,
C I regard an overall sentence of 54 months to be appropriate for C
these two offences. I therefore order that 10 months of the
D sentence in respect of charge (2) are to run consecutively to D
that of charge (1), making a total of 54 months’ imprisonment.
E E
F F
G G
(Anthea Pang)
H District Judge H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
4 DCCC1077/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC1077/2010
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1077 OF 2010 C
D
---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v.
F Lam Sai Sing F
G ---------------------- G
Before: H H Judge Anthea Pang
H Date: 1 November 2010 at 11.20 am H
Present: Ms Monica Chan, PP of the Department of Justice, for
HKSAR
I Mr Peter Chan of Messrs. K.F. Chan & Co, assigned by I
the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
J Offence: (1) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) J
(2) Possession of offensive weapons (管有攻擊性武器)
K --------------------- K
L Reasons for Sentence L
---------------------
M M
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of
N N
trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and
O (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 and one charge of O
possession of offensive weapons, contrary to section 17 of the
P Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228. P
Q Q
2. The facts are simple. On 21 July 2010, while the
police were executing a search warrant on the rooftop of Cheung
R R
On Mansion, Kwun Tong, the defendant was seen coming out from
S the premises. He was therefore brought back to the premises and, S
on his person, some keys were found. One of the keys was then
T used to open the padlock of a desk drawer. Inside the drawer, T
three plastic bags containing a total of 119 packets of heroin
U U
hydrochloride were found. The drug was that particularized in
1 DCCC1077/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
the charge, that is, a total of 25.72 grammes of a mixture
containing 15.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. Paraphernalia
B B
like an electronic scale, a wad of white plastic sheets and a
C wad of resealable plastic bags were found alongside the drug. C
This is the subject matter of the first charge.
D D
3. Upon further search, two machetes, three beef knives,
E E
three survival knives, one Kukri knife, one fruit knife and one
iron pipe with blade were found being covered by a piece of
F F
cloth and placed in the lower shelf of a cabinet. This is the
G subject matter of the second charge. G
H 4. The defendant is aged 46 and is now separated from his H
wife. He received education up to Primary 6 and worked as a
I I
casual construction site worker, earning about HK$6,000 per
month at the time of his arrest. Since 1979, he has been before
J J
the court on 15 previous occasions and has got convictions in
K
respect of various offences, including possession of a dangerous K
drug, theft, burglary and assaulting a police officer. In April
L 2001, he was sentenced to DATC for two counts of trafficking in L
a dangerous drug. In February this year, he was again sentenced
M to DATC for possession of a dangerous drug and assaulting a M
police officer. The defendant was recently released on 25 June
N N
2010. Yet, within less than a month, he committed the present
offences.
O O
P 5. In mitigation, Mr. Chan for the defendant said that P
the defendant’s previous trafficking in a dangerous drug
Q convictions were quite dated and were not serious ones as he was Q
only sent to the DATC for those offences. Therefore, he should
R R
not be regarded as one who has a bad record in trafficking drugs.
It was also said on behalf of the defendant that the offensive
S S
weapons found in his possession were stored inside a cabinet in
T his own private premises. As the defendant possessed these T
weapons with the intent to use the same for safeguarding
U purposes in the course of his trafficking in the dangerous drug, U
2 DCCC1077/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
the two offences could be described as part and parcel of the
same unlawful enterprise. Concurrent sentences are therefore
B B
asked for.
C C
6. In R v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370, the
D Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in heroin. D
For trafficking between 10 and 50 grammes of narcotic, a term of
E E
imprisonment of 5 to 8 years is called for. In the instant case,
the narcotic involved is 15.29 grammes of heroin hydrochloride.
F F
For this quantity, I consider a starting point of 5½ years to be
G appropriate. G
H 7. I have carefully considered the matters put forth in H
mitigation. Other than the defendant’s pleas, I do not see any
I I
other factors which warrant a reduction in sentence. For charge
(1), I am going to adopt a starting point of 5½ years. The
J J
defendant pleaded guilty and will be given a one-third reduction
K
for that. He is therefore to serve a term of 44 months’ K
imprisonment for this charge.
L L
8. In respect of charge (2), I have examined the weapons
M and found most of them with sharp blades, some with serrated M
edges. The iron pipe with a sharpened blade appears to be self-
N N
made. All these are lethal weapons and it is not an exaggeration
to say that the defendant had with him at home an armoury of
O O
knives. Although they were stored inside the defendant’s
P premises, the defendant admitted that he possessed these weapons P
with the intent to use them for safeguarding purposes in the
Q course of his drug business. I consider this a serious matter in Q
view of the likely harm these weapons could cause to others when
R R
being used and I take the view that a heavy sentence has to be
imposed in order to have deterrent effect. I therefore consider
S S
a starting point of 1½ years to be appropriate. The defendant
T pleaded guilty and will be given one-third reduction for his T
plea. He is therefore to serve a term of 1 year for this charge.
U U
3 DCCC1077/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
The facts in relation to the 2 nd charge are separate and distinct
from those of the first and the sentences should run
B B
consecutively. However, having considered the totality principle,
C I regard an overall sentence of 54 months to be appropriate for C
these two offences. I therefore order that 10 months of the
D sentence in respect of charge (2) are to run consecutively to D
that of charge (1), making a total of 54 months’ imprisonment.
E E
F F
G G
(Anthea Pang)
H District Judge H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
4 DCCC1077/2010/Sentence
V V