HKSAR v. Liu Rencong

HCCC 237/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 237 OF 2015

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant has been convicted on his own plea of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

The Particulars of Offence provide that on 16 December 2014, at the Customs Arrival Hall, Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point, New Territories in Hong Kong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug namely 980 grammes of a powder containing 573 grammes of ketamine.

The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, that the defendant is a resident of mainland China and the holder of a two-way permit. In the afternoon on 16 December 2014, upon entering Hong Kong from China, the defendant was intercepted by Customs and Excise officers for clearance as he walked past the “Green Channel” at the Customs Arrival Hall of the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point, New Territories, in Hong Kong.

Upon a body search, one bag of suspected dangerous drug was found from the inner chest pocket of the defendant’s jacket, while another two bags of suspected dangerous drug were found from the inner pockets of his vest.

Arrested and cautioned, the defendant admitted that the three bags of thing were “K powder” and they belonged to him. The defendant said he consumed them when he had headache.

The three bags of suspected dangerous drug were examined by a chemist and were confirmed to contain a total of 980 grammes of a powder containing 573 grammes of ketamine.

As in December 2014, the retail value of the ketamine seized was estimated to be around HK$140,000.

In the Summary of Facts, the defendant expressly admitted that he was unlawfully trafficking in the ketamine seized by importing them into Hong Kong.

By way of personal background, the defendant is 53 years of age. He was born in September 1963. At the time of his arrest, the defendant claimed to be living in mainland China. The defendant has completed secondary form two education in mainland China.

The defendant has one previous conviction recorded in 1989 which is not connected with dangerous drugs.

By way of mitigation, Mr Geoffrey Chang submitted on behalf of the defendant that he is remorseful.

I am further told that the defendant had been unemployed for around seven years after a traffic accident. The accident has left the defendant with very poor memory and a changed personality. As a result, the defendant has been unable to work and has been maintained financially by his younger sister and mother in Hong Kong.

I was told that the defendant was in financial difficulty and he was promised RMB4,000 for taking the drug from China to Hong Kong. He does not claim that any part of the dangerous drug seized was for his own consumption.

Mr Chang urged upon the court to take into account the defendant’s disability, which has also led to his divorce and a breakup of his family by his son and daughter leaving him.

However, as has been pointed out by the courts on many previous occasions, personal and family circumstances of a defendant would offer little mitigation in serious cases of drug trafficking, which call for heavy deterrent sentences in order to protect the public.

The defendant has been convicted of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The narcotic involved is 573 grammes of ketamine. The Court of Appeal, in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, has set out the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking in between 300 to 600 grammes of ketamine, the proper sentence to be imposed after trial should be 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

In my view, following the guidelines in the Hii Siew Cheng case and based on the quantity of the narcotic involved, the proper initial starting point for sentence in the present case should be 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. The initial starting point should be enhanced by 8 months for the international element in the present case. I have pitched this enhancement at a level slightly below those set out by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chung Ping Kun [2014] 6 HKC 106 at paragraph 9, a case which dealt with the more serious ‘Ice’ drug.

This takes the starting point up to 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

I shall give the defendant a full one-third discount for his guilty plea.

Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 8 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.