HKSAR v. Hon Cheuk Lam

DCCC 845/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 845 OF 2015

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “Trafficking in a dangerous drug”, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134. The dangerous drug involved is ketamine.

Facts

2.At about 2018 hours on 7 July 2015, the defendant was intercepted by the police as he was seen acting suspiciously in Tai Yee House, Tai Yuen Estate, Tai Po. 

3.Upon search, the defendant was found in possession of 3 mobile phones, cash of $489.5 and nine packets containing a total of 138 grammes of a powder containing 87.3 grammes of ketamine. 

4.Under caution, the defendant said that he was delivering the ketamine for a reward of $2,000. 

5.In his video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he came to know an unknown male X in Mainland China a few months ago.  X telephoned him in the morning of 7 July 2015 asking him to pick up the ketamine at the lay-by of Chung Nga Road which was near his residence in Tai Po.  Later the same day, the defendant was notified by X to deliver the ketamine to the fire hose reel on 25/F, Block B, Tai Yee House, Tai Yuen Estate. 

Mitigation

6.The defendant is aged 24 and was living his parents and sisters.  He was working as a transportation worker prior to the arrest. 

7.In mitigation, it was submitted that for the 9 packets of ketamine seized from the defendant, 2 of them were for his own consumption.

Sentence

8.The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine (see Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1).  For trafficking in 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, the sentence ranges from 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.  The amount of ketamine trafficked by the defendant is 87.3 grammes.  For this quantity, the appropriate starting point is 77 months’ imprisonment.

9.Regarding the claim for self-consumption, I have reminded myself the relevant principles in HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau & anor [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 and HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121.  The Court of Appeal held in the latter case that a discount between 10% and 25% from the basic starting point would be appropriate in cases where all or part of the drugs were intended for trafficker’s own consumption.  In the present case, there is no evidence to rebut the allegation of self-consumption.  The prosecution has confirmed that the defendant did claim that part of the drug was for his own consumption in his video-recorded interview.  The criminal conviction records of the defendant show that he has previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs, which supports his claim that he is a drug abuser.  In the circumstances, I am prepared to accept that part of the drug was for his own consumption and therefore reduce the starting point by 8 months to reflect the discount for self-consumption.

10.Since the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, he is entitled to the usual 1/3 discount on his guilty plea.  Therefore, the sentence will be reduced to 46 months’ imprisonment.  I hereby sentence the defendant to 46 months’ imprisonment.