HKSAR v. Ng Ho Lun

HCCC 158/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 158 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, and one charge of possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to 8(1)(a) and (2) of the same ordinance.

The defendant was intercepted by the police on the street. He tried to get away but was eventually subdued. He was found to be holding a paper bag. In it, was a black plastic bag with five plastic bags containing drugs inside. Those drugs upon analysis were found to be 1,226.62 grammes of a powder containing 856.23 grammes of ketamine, which is the subject matter of the 1st count.

One folded piece of paper containing 0.66 grammes of a powder which contained 0.54 grammes of ketamine was found in the defendant’s trouser pocket, which is the subject matter of the 3rd count.

After his arrest, his residence was searched. A plastic bag with 10 bags containing a total of 135.99 grammes of a powder which contained 75.05 grammes of ketamine was found underneath a pillow, which is the subject matter of the 2nd count. An electronic scale and a bundle of resealable plastic bags were found inside his flat.

During a later recorded interview the defendant admitted that he collected the drugs and paraphernalia earlier from a person called “Ah Hoi” and waited at home for Ah Hoi’s instruction to deliver the drugs to Kwun Tong for a reward of 1,500 to 1,600 dollars. He now admits that he was trafficking in all the drugs apart of those in his trouser pocket.

The total retail value of the drugs that he was trafficking in was in a region of $166,000.

By way of mitigation I was told that the defendant, aged 26, is single. He has four items of criminal records, three were all possession of dangerous drugs and one was in breach of a probation order. On the first occasion he was given probation, but he was in breach of that probation order and sentenced to DATC. The last two items in his criminal record were in 2009 and 2011 and for those two records he was sentenced to DATC. He was last released from the DATC on 21 October 2011.

Counsel told me that the defendant’s parents divorced when he was very young and he was taken care of by his parental grandparents. His father had a car accident back in 2009 and suffered from depression since. He has a younger sister who was around the age of 11 at the time of this offence. I was told that the defendant committed the present offence because of financial difficulty and he wished to earn some quick money to ease his stringent circumstances.

I was told that the defendant is now in deep remorse and would engage in studies during his incarceration period so that when he is eventually discharged he would become a useful citizen.

Counsel also urged me to consider that part of the drugs were for his own consumption, and this allegation is not inconsistent with his previous conviction. Further, it was urged that the defendant had not yet delivered any drugs to any person yet.

In sentencing the defendant I have taken into account the nature of the offence, the nature of the drugs involved and the sentencing authorities and tariffs, as well as mitigation advanced by counsel and those contained in the mitigation letter written by the defendant’s father. The total amount of ketamine for trafficking in the present case, that is Charges 1 and 2, amounts to around 931.28 grammes.

Whilst counsel urges for a discount on the basis that some portion of the drugs were for the defendant’s self‑consumption, from what is in the summary of facts I am not satisfied that the summary of facts discloses any discernible portion or significant portion was for the defendant’s own consumption.

For trafficking in ketamine weighing between 600 to 1,000 grammes, a starting point of 12 to 14 years is to be adopted. I adopt a starting point of 13½ years. I shall give him a one-third discount for his plea and he is sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment.

I shall apportion the sentences as follows. Charge 1, 8 years; Charge 2, 4 years. For Charge 3, I adopt a starting point of 12 months, reduced to 8 months on his plea. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I order 1 year out of the sentence in respect of Charge 2 to run consecutively, and the sentence in respect of Charge 3 to run concurrently, so a total of 9 years’ imprisonment.