HKSAR v. Ng Ka Ho, Jack

HCCC121/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 121 OF 2009 

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

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

Before:  The Honourable Mrs Justice Barnes

Date:    9 June 2009 at 10.04 am

Offence:  Trafficking in a dangerous drug, etc. (販運危險藥物等罪項)

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

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

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

COURT:  Please stand up, defendant.

The defendant, Ng Ka-ho, Jack, pleaded guilty to one count of Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, before a magistrate, and was committed to be sentenced in the Court of First Instance of the High Court.  The defendant confirmed his plea and the summary of facts. 

The Summary of Facts 

This is a typical stop-and-search case.  On 6 October 2008 the defendant was stopped by two police officers who were conducting anti-dangerous drug operation in Wong Tai Sin Lower Estate.  Upon search, two packets containing 255.09 grammes of a powder containing 214.82 grammes of ketamine were found inside the plastic bag the defendant was carrying at the time.  Upon arrest and under caution, the defendant admitted he was conveying the ketamine for somebody else.

During two subsequent video-recorded interviews the defendant gave further details as to who asked him to carry the dangerous drug, how he got hold of the dangerous drug and how much he would get as a reward of conveying the dangerous drug.  The estimated retail value of the dangerous drug was HK$32,651.  

Background and Mitigation 

The defendant was born on 23 October 1985, now 23 years of age.  He is not a man of clear record, having appeared in court on eight previous occasions, with nine convictions.  Two of the convictions were for possession of dangerous drugs.  On the last occasion it was for an offence of possession of dangerous drugs (on 21 June of 2007) he was given a 4 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.  In other words, the defendant committed the present offence during the suspension period.  

Counsel for the defendant told me in mitigation that the defendant came from a single-parent family as his parents were divorced while he was young.  He had been living with his mother until she died in 1999, when the defendant was 14 years old.  The defendant then lived with his maternal grandmother.  Due to the lack of parental guidance, from 2000 onwards, the defendant started to get into trouble and accumulated a number of convictions.  Although the defendant had two previous convictions of possession of dangerous drugs, Mr Leung emphasised that this is the first time the defendant is convicted of an offence for trafficking dangerous drugs.  

Mr Leung asked me to take into consideration the defendant committed the present offence when there was only 4 months to go for the suspension period of 18 months imposed on his previous conviction of possession of dangerous drugs.  

Mr Leung referred me to the relevant authority and noted that the present case falls into the 6 to 9 year bracket.  He asked me to take into account the defendant’s plea and the cooperative attitude when passing sentence.  

The defendant and his grandmother have both written to me.  The former asked for an appropriate sentence, while the latter asked for a lenient one. 

The Sentence 

The courts have repeatedly stressed that trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence and calls for a deterrent sentence.  For the trafficking of ketamine, on 6 June 2008 the Court of Appeal, in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, CAAR7/2006, and HKSAR v Wong Yat San, [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, CACC126/2007, set down tariffs for such trafficking.  The quantity involved here - there is 214.82 grammes - falls into the third category of 50-300 grammes.  The starting point is between 6 to 9 years. 

The defendant is still a young man, yet he has already collected quite a number of convictions.  Judging from the penalty he had received, this is by far the most serious offence he has ever committed.  He is now fully aware of the consequences of such a serious transgression of the law and is truly remorseful.  

Whilst I appreciate the rather tragic background of the defendant - mother having died while he was very young, hardly have any father at all because there is no contact - I have to bear in mind that he had been given the opportunity to be placed on probation, and also had been sentenced to a detention centre, he does not seem to have learnt any lesson at all. 

Having considered all the circumstances of the case and the defendant’s background, I am of the view that a proper starting point of 8 years is appropriate.  The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, he is entitled to the full one-third discount.  The defendant’s family circumstances are not such that I would exercise my discretion to further reduce the sentence.  There are no other reasons to further reduce the sentence either.  

As to the suspended sentence, I do bear in mind that the defendant committed the present offence when there were 4 more months to go (of the 18 months period).  Although the present offence is also drug-related, bearing in mind that the defendant will have to serve a fairly lengthy sentence already for this offence, I order no activation of the suspended sentence of 4 months. 

For the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 4 months.   

(Proceedings from 10.17 am not required) 

Court rises - 10.19 am

9 June 2009