HKSAR v. Liu Long Kwan

HCCC 418/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 418 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant, Liu Long-kwan, was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.

The Summary of Facts, or the Admitted Facts, disclosed that on 28 March 2016, uniformed police at a road block felt suspicious when a private car drove into the area of a bus stop. The defendant was sitting at the driver’s seat when the police approached the car. A search of the defendant’s pocket yielded some cash and a set of electronic scale. A search of the boot of the car yielded, among other things, the following items:

(1) A rucksack containing 76 packets of powder which was later confirmed to be 1,942.17 grammes of a powder containing 1,085.16 grammes of ketamine.

(2) Two piles of empty resealable plastic bags.

The defendant denied knowledge of the ketamine under caution.

At a video-recorded interview conducted subsequently, the defendant admitted he was the one who packed the ketamine into the smaller bags. However, the defendant refused to disclose the source of the ketamine or why he had kept them in his vehicle.

The retail value of the ketamine was estimated to be around HK$264,135.

The defendant admitted that he unlawfully trafficked the ketamine in question at the time.

According to the antecedent statement, the defendant is 24 years of age. He has a previous conviction but unrelated to dangerous drug. He studied up to Form 6, and after quitting school, he relied on his family for his living expenses. He had worked in a hotel before and he was a transportation worker at the time of the offence. He suffered from chronic eczema, and had plates and screws in his arm after sustaining an accident in 2015.

Mr Francis Cheng, mitigating on behalf of the defendant, gave me some more details about the defendant’s background. The defendant’s father committed suicide when the defendant was 15, due to debts incurred. To avoid the debt collectors, the defendant’s mother left Hong Kong with the defendant and went to Burma for about a year. After they returned to Hong Kong, they went to live in the Yuen Long area. That is a different area from their original home.

The defendant reached Form 6 level though his academic result was not good. The defendant then worked as a cleaner in a hotel but, unfortunately, he slipped and fell, injuring his elbow. As a result of the injury, the defendant could not work, apart from doing some odd jobs as a transportation worker accompanying the goods vehicle. He soon used up his savings and he did not want to ask his family for money. It was then that he met with someone called ‘Ah Bill’ at a disco and was enticed to traffic dangerous drugs for a reward.

Mr Cheng informed me that the defendant is remorseful for what he had done and realised that the root cause of his present predicament stems from his laziness. His family members, including his mother, his aunts and uncles, are all in court to support him. They have also written to me to mitigate on the defendant’s behalf. I do not think there is any need to reiterate what was said in those letters. Suffice it to say that since the defendant’s incarceration, they had noticed a change in the defendant; that is, from someone who did not have a close relationship with his family to someone who acknowledged his mistakes and expressed regrets for not being a filial son to his mother. They all ask me to be lenient to the defendant. Mr Cheng stressed that the defendant had pleaded guilty and urged me to be as lenient as possible within the guidelines.

Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence. A person convicted on indictment is liable to a fine of $5 million and imprisonment for life.

The quantity of ketamine involved in this case is just over 1,000 grammes, that is 1,085.16 grammes. In the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal set down guidelines for the trafficking of ketamine. Trafficking over 1,000 grammes of ketamine, the appropriate starting point is from 14 years upwards.

After considering the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s role and his background, I am of the view that a starting point of 14 years is appropriate.

The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity during the committal stage and I will give him the full one-third discount. While I appreciate the rather sad background of the defendant as disclosed to me by both Mr Cheng and letters from his family members, and noted his positive change and the care and support given to him by his family members, they are not matters I can take into account to further reduce the sentence.

So for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant is sentenced to 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.