IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1155 OF 2013
Reasons for Sentence
1. The defendant has been convicted after trial. He has been convicted of two charges, the first being a tenant permitting premisesto be used for unlawful trafficking in a dangerous drug; secondly, a conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug, the co‑conspiratorbeing his lodger at the relevant time.
2. I do not intend to repeat the facts again. I have given full reasons in my verdict. These convictions are largely successful becauseof the admissions made by the defendant. There is to some extent physical evidence that supports the charges. The defendant admittedthat Miss Tsang moved in and after she moved in, he witnessed and witnessed on many occasions her dealing with drugs which led toher trafficking in the same premises. He condoned her activities in his premises and by his actions permitted her to use the premisesfor that purpose. He went on to implicate himself further by saying that at her request, he on occasion helped her deliver drugsand on occasion collected money for the drugs that he delivered.
3. In mitigation, I have heard the defendant is 39 years old, not a man of clear record. However, the convictions he has relate topossession of dangerous drugs. They were convictions in 1994 and 2010. On both occasions, he was fined. There are obviously noconvictions for anything more serious than possession.
4. There are no guidelines for these offences. Obviously, the court must look at each case, each set of facts individually. I havebeen referred to two authorities for consideration by the defence and prosecution respectively, those being HKSAR v Suen Wing Lam CACC 49 of 2011 and HKSAR v Ho Wing To CACC264 of 2010. I also have in mind what the sentencing guidelines for trafficking “Ice” are.
5. Defendant, I take into account the facts of this case, mitigation put forward, your background and what you said to the police inyour interviews that led to your convictions. After considering all those factors, I find for both charges a starting point of 3years to be appropriate. I agree with defence counsel that on the facts, both charges should be served concurrently. These areconvictions after trial. I see no reason for any further discount to that starting point. Accordingly, for Charges 1 and 2, thedefendant is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment, both to be served concurrently. That is a total of 3 years’ imprisonment.