HKSAR v. Man Wai Hong

DCCC1126/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1126 OF 2008

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

HKSAR

v.

Man Wai-hong

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

Before:   H H Judge Whaley

Date:     20 March 2009 at 10.19 am

Offence:  Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

Reasons for Sentence

1.The defendant has been convicted on his plea of one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely trafficking 200.24 grammes of a powder containing 74.14 grammes of ketamine on 30 September last year in Mong Kok.

2.The facts are very simple.  On the early morning in question, the defendant was intercepted by police officers as he came out of a building in Mong Kok.  He was carrying a bag on his shoulder which on being searched proved to contain the dangerous drugs in question, contained in seven resealable plastic bags.  He was arrested and under caution he admitted the ketamine belonged to him, and at all material times I note that he has admitted the offence in question.

3.The defendant is 23 years old and he has one previous conviction for simple possession of dangerous drugs in 2006.  I have read a number of letters which are addressed to the court from the defendant himself and also from various friends, relations and people whom he has been associated with, all testifying to his good character and good nature, and the fact that he has taken part in voluntary activities (as evidenced by the three certificates handed up). 

4.I accept on the basis of all the material before me that the defendant is not a person of bad nature.  It appears that he needed money, he was in debt at that time, the repayment date was near and he made the terrible mistake of agreeing to courier these drugs in return for a promised reward of $3,000.  He saw this as an easy way of making quick money to help him out of his immediate financial difficulties.  That was a disastrous error of judgment on his part, to take the risk of committing such a very serious offence as this for the sake of a bit of money.

5.He must have had some idea that the courts in Hong Kong take an extremely serious view of the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.  Heavy sentences are imposed which are intended to deter people like the defendant from succumbing to the temptation of making what they see as quick and easy money by doing something so essentially immoral as trafficking in dangerous drugs.

6.While I accept that these drugs do afford some sort of short-term pleasure to people who use them, they in fact ruin a lot of people’s lives.  People who traffic in these drugs are simply making the drugs more freely available, and thereby increase the likelihood that more people are going to become addicted and have their lives ruined by them.

7.The defendant was trafficking in a large quantity of ketamine in this case.  No doubt that is why he was promised a slightly larger reward than one normally comes across; I presume he has not obtained the reward and in any event it would mean nothing compared to the sentence that he is going to have to serve for this offence.

8.It is clear from all the letters written by various people that the defendant is a person of essentially good nature, and that he has been involved in charitable work, which is a credit to him.  I accept that.  However, there is very little scope in sentencing for such a serious offence as this for reflecting factors like a good background.

9.The Court of Appeal has suggested guidelines for sentencing in Secretary for Justice and Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 which are based essentially on the quantity of the drugs that were being trafficked.  The greater the quantity of narcotic that the defendant was trafficking in, the heavier the sentence will be. 

10.The relevant sentencing band suggests that for a quantity between 50 and 300 grammes of narcotic, a sentence of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment would normally be appropriate.   While it is true that these guidelines are not intended to be straitjacket, they do not have to be slavishly followed by a sentencing court, nevertheless they should only be departed from for good reason.  On all the facts before me, despite what I have said about your relatively good background, there is no reason which would justify a departure from the guidelines.  

11.For the quantity of ketamine narcotic which the defendant was trafficking, namely 74.14 grammes, I have adopted a starting point of 6 years 3 months’ imprisonment, namely 75 months.  For his plea of guilty, his ready co-operation throughout, and his remorse, the defendant is entitled to the normal one-third discount which reduces the starting point of 75 months to 50 months’ imprisonment.

12.In all the circumstances of this case, I shall discount that by a further one month to reflect the favourable factors in the defendant’s background, and I impose a sentence of 49 months’ imprisonment. 

13.I am encouraged to see the defendant taking such a positive attitude.  He is clearly very remorseful.  I think he has obtained a good insight into how he has gone astray in recent years, and he seems to be very determined to reform himself, make good use of his time in prison.  He will have good help from friends, relations, the priest in the church who have written these letters, and there is every hope that he will succeed in reintegrating himself into the law abiding community once he has finished serving his sentence.