HKSAR v. Lau Tsz Kin

HCCC 196/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 196 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

You have admitted that on 4 December 2014 outside Yee On Building on Yee On Street in Kwun Tong, you unlawfully trafficked in 495 grammes of a power containing 252 grammes of ketamine.

On 4 December at about 6 pm, a plainclothes patrolling officer whilst walking on the pavement saw you looking nervous and acting suspiciously. He attempted to intercept you but you walked away at a faster pace. Then placing his hand on your shoulder, you started struggling however you were then subdued by other officers. You were searched. From a bag you were carrying, the police officers found two small plastic bags containing the drugs in the charge.

Upon arrest and under caution for trafficking in dangerous drugs you replied, “I just picked up the two packs of stuff for ‘Ah B’ but I have no idea where to have them delivered”.

The retail value of the ketamine was estimated to be around HK$70,785 as in December 2014.

Defendant, you are 31 years of age. You have one previous conviction that is of possession of a dangerous drug which was committed in 2008 to which you were fined $1,500. At the time of arrest you were a student studying for a diploma in healthcare at the Caritas Institute of Community Education. That was essentially a nursing course. Previous to that you had worked as a surveyor on construction sites earning $17,000 a month. Your brother is also a nurse, and in your letter that you have written to me you have stated that you wanted to help people and be trained as a nurse yourself following in his footsteps.

Your counsel, Mr Richard Donald, has informed me that you had, in fact, been a drug-dependent on ketamine for many years. In support of that, I have various documents showing that you have attended drug withdrawal centres as well as reports from the United Christian Hospital and from Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre after you were admitted. It is clear from those medical reports that you have been a drug-dependent and had been trying to quit your habit. Your aim was of course to be drug‑free, change your career and help others.

As for your nursing course, Mr Donald informs me that to enable you to be eligible you had to be unemployed. That is why you gave up your previous job. However, as a result of that, you were in a very difficult financial position and as a result of the pressure from attending your diploma nursing course and still associating with undesirable peers, you resorted to dangerous drugs again. You therefore started consuming drugs almost on a daily basis. From the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre’s medical report, it appears that your last dose was approximately a week before your arrest.

Mr Donald has correctly referred me to the tariff guideline sentence case in respect of trafficking in ketamine which is Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng. He has informed me that contrary to what you told the police in your video‑recorded interview, you had in fact made an arrangement to buy these drugs and the profit you would make from selling them you would pay back to the seller of the drugs but that you would keep some of these drugs for your own self‑consumption. As you were in a desperate financial situation in not having a job, you felt this was your only way out to support your habit.

Mr Donald submits that whilst the dangerous drugs in your possession were in the majority destined to be sold by you, a proportion was to be kept by you to feed your own addiction. I accept that a proportion of these drugs were intended for your self-use. The medical reports support such an acceptance by me. This is also supported by the fact that you do have a similar criminal record of possession of dangerous drugs.

In the circumstances, I am prepared to adjust the starting point to take into account that part of the drugs that you were trafficking in were for self-consumption.

In sentencing you, and following the guidelines in Hii Siew Cheng, the band you fall in is that of between 50 and 300 grammes, a sentence of between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment after trial is appropriate.

You were trafficking in 252 grammes of ketamine. Had you been convicted after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. However, giving you, firstly, a discount on the basis that part of these drugs were for your self-consumption, I would reduce that starting point to one of 7 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. You have pleaded guilty and therefore I give you the usual credit of the one-third discount and you shall therefore be sentenced 5 years’ imprisonment.