HKSAR v. Lau Ka Lam

DCCC952/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 952 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking dangerous drugs namely, 26.73 grammes of a powder containing 21.49 grammes of ketamine.

The Prosecution Case

2.At about 6:15pm on 19/2/2009, outside the UA Langham Place cinema in Mongkok, PW1 posed as an undercover agent called a male and subsequently to the conversation, the Defendant lead PW1 to a building.

3.Inside the lift of the building, the Defendant took out the drugs from her boots and passed on to PW1. PW1 gave her $1,800 marked money.

4.About 6:35 pm, PW2 intercepted the Defendant while PW1 came over and confirmed that she had just bought the drugs from the Defendant.

5.The HKD1,800 marked money was found with the Defendant and she admitted under caution that she helped her boy friend to deliver the drugs to PW1.

Criminal Record

6.The Defendant has a clear record.

Mitigation

7.I am told that the Defendant is now 18 old and  was abandoned by her natural parents when she was only 2 months old. She was brought up by  her foster parents.

8.She dropped out from school after completing Form 3. Apparently, she also started to mingle with some undesirable peers. One of them must be her so called boy friend who asked her to deliver the drugs in question.

9.She said that she has been going out with this man called Chui Man Kit for some 2 years before the commission of the present offence.

10.She said that  Chui Man Kit got into financial trouble and asked her to deliver the drugs in questions. She worried that if she refused him, Chui Man Kit might terminate the relationship.

11.The Defendant is now remorseful and understands that she had made a wrong judgment at the material time because the price to keep a relationship was far too high.

12.This Chiu Man Kit ran as fast as he could when he saw the Defendant was being arrested.

13.Since the arrest, the Defendant has changed , she takes a positive attitude in her work and in her life.

14.All the letters from her friends , relatives  and the church said that she was basically a good person, but committed this mistaken on a wrong judgment.  They also asked for a lenient sentence on her behalf.

15.Today, this Court is full of her relatives, friends , friends from the church, her fiancé, foster parents and natural parent to demonstrate their supports to her.

16.The Defendant now understands that drugs has a harmful effect in this society and she wishes in the future to participate in some programmes to inform the young generation not to get involve with drugs.

Sentence

17.Counsel for the Defendant has done a full mitigation and asked this Court to call for a Training Centre report before passing sentence on the defendant in view of her clear record and she is 18 years old.

18.In Ko Fei Tat (2002) 4 HKC 59, the Court of Appeal held that mitigating factors such as age , disabilities which for less serious offence would lead to a discount but little weight in such a serious offence.

19.For the present offence,  according to the authority of Heii Siew ShingCAAR 7/2006 the quantity involved falls into the sentence bracket  of 4 to 6 years.

20.The commission of present offence , according to the Defendant, she was abused by her boyfriend. She struggled when Chui Man Kit asked her to deliver the drugs and to received $1,800. She knew that it was wrong.

21.There are many incidents that youngsters are being used by others to commit serious offences.

22.To call a Training Centre report will give the Defendant an expectation that this Court will pass a Training Centre Order.

23.I have made it clear that a training centre order is inappropriate.

24.A sentence of deterrent and punishment is necessary to inform the public that for those who commit such a serious offence should expect a long sentence.

25.Against this background, I consider that 4 ½ years is an appropriate starting point, I reduce to 36 months to reflect the Defendant’s guilty plea.