HKSAR v. Lee Tak Lung
|
HCCC198/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 198 OF 2009 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording --------------------------------- COURT: You are convicted on your own plea of the offence charged. The drugs involved were quite a sizable amount of ketamine. Courts in Hong Kong in recent years have stressed that ketamine would have an addictive effect on consumers, and courts have accordingly regarded the use of ketamine as having a very damaging effect particularly on young‑aged consumers. At the outset of this morning’s proceedings, your counsel had indicated that there were certain disagreements between the prosecution and the defence with regard to the Summary of Facts. Your leading counsel has addressed me and referred me to a number of authorities. Having heard both the prosecution and the defence, I took the view, and I have indicated to all parties concerned in open court, that if the difference between the prosecution’s version and the defendant’s version would not materially affect the sentence, then I am of the view that the version that was put forward by you or on your behalf is not materially different from the version put forward by the prosecution. In that event, I am to sentence you on the basis of your version. On your version, you said that on the morning of 30 March, a friend left a black plastic bag in your residence, and then some time later, a police party entered and searched the flat. Inside your room a number of plastic bags containing 202.34 grammes of powder were found. In addition, there was one electronic scale and 31 transparent resealable plastic bags also found. The Government Chemist later then confirmed that the plastic bag which contained the 202.34 grammes of powder in fact contained 166.97 grammes of ketamine. Now, the offence is a serious one. I have, in addition to following very closely your learned counsel’s mitigation, also read letters written by you and by your mother. It is very obvious from the letters that you are now remorseful. It is also quite obvious from the letters that your family is now fully supportive of you. I shall take that into consideration. Now, both the prosecution and the defence - and by prosecution I mean what they have written in on 12 September 2009 - and defence - that is, from Mr Dykes’ submission - that as far as the sentence is concerned, the guiding authority is the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng. Dealing with the amount of drugs in question, it is within the bracket of a term of imprisonment of between 6 to 9 years, and the drugs that are involved in this case would bring the sentence to the upper end of the bracket. Having considered all matters, I have decided to adopt a starting point of 8 years. In view of your timely plea, I will have to give you the usual, customary one-third discount, and that will bring the sentence to 5 years and 4 months. So you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 4 months. |