HKSAR v. Lee Ka Kit

HCCC 392/2017

[2018] HKCFI 1205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 392 OF 2017

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

Lee Ka-kit faced a charge sheet before a magistrate, which alleged in the 1st charge, traffic in a dangerous drug, in that he unlawfully trafficked in 114.5 grammes of a solid containing 89.1 grammes of ketamine; the 2nd charge, also a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, alleges he unlawfully trafficked in 1,173 grammes of a solid containing 465 grammes of ketamine. Both offences were said to have occurred on 21 March 2007, first at the ground floor of Gillies Mansion in Hung Hom, the 2nd charge at a room on the 14th Floor of that mansion.

In relation to both offences, on 23 October 2017, Mr Lee pleaded guilty before a magistrate, and was committed for sentence to the High Court.

The facts which Mr Lee admitted when pleading guilty was that he was intercepted by the police leaving Gillies Mansion in Hung Hom. He was searched, and as a result of the search, 29 plastic bags containing 114.5 grammes of solid containing 89.1 grammes of ketamine were found on his person. He was arrested and cautioned, and said in answer, “I only helped somebody pack the ‘K chai’”. There is no doubt that the reference to “K chai” is a reference to ketamine.

Mr Lee was taken to his residence on the 14th Floor of Gillies Mansion. Entry was obtained by virtue of keys found in his possession. A search was conducted at the premises, and amongst other things, the following items were found: Five transparent resealable bags containing the ketamine revealed in Charge 2; a plastic bag-sealing machine; electronic scales; and a large number of empty transparent resealable plastic bags.

Mr Lee was arrested in connection with the seizure at his residence. In answer to the caution administered following the arrest, Mr Lee said, “I only helped someone to watch and pack the “k chai” in the house. They do not belong to me. Further, Mr Lee asserted that the ketamine did not belong to him, but someone had put them there for temporary storage.

A short while later, Mr Lee was interviewed under caution in a video-recorded interview. In that interview, he asserted that somebody had given him the drugs in question, and the paraphernalia used to pack those drugs.

He admitted that his task was to pack the ketamine into smaller bags, and deliver it to others. In this regard, he admitted that the electronic scales were for him to weigh drugs, and the plastic resealable bags were for him to pack the drugs.

Mr Lee admitted in the video-recorded interview that he had received the drugs which were the subject of arrest and seizure about a week ago. He said that nevertheless, he had been delivering drugs for three to four months. He admitted that he took delivery of drugs around once every four of five days, he told police in the video-recorded interview that he received $1,500 as a reward for every 250 grammes of ketamine that he delivered. Mr Lee told police he has rented the premises about four months ago prior to arrest, and he slept there and used the address to pack ketamine. He admitted that one of the mobile phones seized from him was used in connection with the receipt of drugs for packing.

It is admitted that the amount of drugs amounted to 1,287.5 grammes of a solid containing 546 grammes of ketamine, and that has an estimated street value of $339,000.

He is a person of clear record, he is 25, he is single, and educated to Form 3 standard. At the time of his arrest, he was employed by the Hong Kong Broadband Network, and received a salary of $16,000. He had been employed by that company for three years. He had told police that he was addicted to ketamine, but otherwise his health was good.

In this court this morning, I received and had explained to me a heartfelt letter from the accused himself. It is clear to me that while I am not able to read Chinese, what I had explained to me demonstrated a great deal of care with which that letter was put together. It notes that his family, although a family in considerable difficulty, have stuck by him and supported him. It indicates in the clearest term that he is deeply remorseful for what he has done, and that remorse is exacerbated by the fact that he is seeing the suffering of his family as a result of his misdeeds.

He says, and I accept, he is determined to improve himself in prison, and I sincerely hope that determination is materialised so that when he leaves prison, he will be, in many respects, a better person.

When I first read these papers, I sat there in amazement, that a young man of clear record, 25 years of age, in steady and good employment, would commit a crime such as this. The answer has been provided to me this morning in the difficult circumstances of his family, the financial pressure that he felt he was under, and frankly, he gave in to what was probably seen as a quick, easy short-term solution. Plainly, it was quick, for the short term, it was a solution. But for the long term, it was an absolute disaster.

I have also heard and had explained to me letters which suggests that the accused has turned to God, and that I venture to suggest, is a very important thing for him, because in the difficult days ahead, and they will be difficult, he will have that comfort of religious support, as well as his family support.

I have also taken into account letters from his mother and sister, and those outline, in heartfelt detail, difficult family circumstances and that may provide some explanation for what otherwise is almost inexplicable conduct.

Ketamine is a dangerous drugs by reason of Section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and Schedule 1 to that ordinance. The maximum penalty for unlawful trafficking in a dangerous drugs is a fine of $5 million or life imprisonment, or both.

The courts of Hong Kong have articulated a series of guideline for the unlawful trafficking of dangerous drugs, and, in particular, the trafficking of ketamine. On any view, the penalties revealed in those guidelines reflect the serious view that the courts, on behalf of the Hong Kong community, take of such conduct. That such a serious view is taken reflects, amongst other things, the real danger to an individual who takes ketamine, and to the community which has to deal with the consequences of dealing with people who take ketamine.

The danger to the individual is perhaps best explained by the accused himself, who is addicted to ketamine. The danger to the individual who ingests ketamine was outlined in depressing detail in the Court of Appeal, in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. From any view, both the short term and long term consequences are potentially very serious indeed, the problem is not just the impact on the individual, but the costs to our community in relation to matters such as medical treatment.

The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine were outlined in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 at page 20 and 29 of that judgment. Relevant to this case, the Court of Appeal suggested that for cases involving 300 to 600 grammes of ketamine, a sentence of between 9 and 12 years was appropriate. For all practical purposes, Mr Lee pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and he is entitled to a full discount of one-third of the sentence he would have received at trial.

As I have already observed, why a person of hitherto good character, with a steady job, should be involved in the packing and transporting of substantial quantities of ketamine is a question not only worth answering, but considering very carefully, and I think that it is fair to say that I accept what I have been told in mitigation today, and that provides an answer.

In the course of the video-recorded interview, Mr Lee admitted that he was paid $1,500 for each 250 grammes of ketamine that he trafficked, and that he had been trafficking for three or four months.

I mention this again for two purposes. First, to make the point that it occurred, but the fact that the sentence I will shortly impose is not enhanced in any respect by the previous history of trafficking.

Secondly, the obvious relationship between risk and reward in case like this is cruelly stacked against Mr Lee, because for the sentence he is about to receive, he would have been paid less than 20 per cent of his ordinary monthly salary. The monumental stupidity of the conduct of Mr Lee has to be seen against that background.

Nevertheless, this is commercial trafficking for reward. Against that, I have taken into account, and I accept the deep and heartfelt remorse and the extensive and generous family support in the face of these difficult circumstances.

Lee Ka-kit, please stand up.

The amount of ketamine in this case is 546.6 grammes. I propose to impose a sentence which reflects the totality, because the acts of trafficking reflected in those two counts are close in time, and for all practical purposes, indistinguishable. On this total quantity, I think that Mr Lee would have received a sentence of 11 years if he had been convicted after trial.

Doing the best I can to balance justice with mercy, I order that in relation to both charges, Lee Ka-kit be sentenced to 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, and that those sentences be served concurrently.