HKSAR v. Li Sing Hing

DCCC213/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 213 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant are as follows: in the afternoon of 4 January 2010, the police intercepted the defendant in Shan King Estate, Tuen Mun. Upon search, four packets of ketamine, being the subject matter of the present charge, were found inside the defendant’s trousers pocket.

3.Under caution, the defendant admitted that he bought the drug at the price of HK$4,000 for sale to others and he would keep a little bit for his own consumption. At the time when he was arrested, he was delivering the drug to his buyer.

4.Upon examination, the drug was found to be 53.97 grammes of a powder containing 31.48 grammes of ketamine.

5.The defendant is aged 26, and he is single. He was educated to Form 1 level and he then started working on a casual basis. Prior to his arrest, he was living with his mother and his younger brother and was working as a transportation worker, earning about HK$500 per day.

6.The defendant has been convicted on three previous occasions, including one trafficking in a dangerous drug and one possession of a dangerous drug offence. For the possession offence, he was sentenced on 17 July 2009 to 3 months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months; in other words, he committed the present offence during the operational period of the suspended sentence.

7.In mitigation, Mr Chu told the court that the defendant is addicted to ketamine and has had the habit for 10 years. Such led to him suffering from various illnesses at present, including having to urinate almost every 15 minutes.

8.Mr Chu said, however, after having been remanded in custody, the defendant’s condition has improved and he is therefore determined to quit his drug habit after discharge from prison.

9.It was also said that although the defendant was taking drugs to his friends at the time, he did not intend to earn any money but merely to charge them the price he himself had paid for the drug.

10.Mr Chu emphasised that the defendant is remorseful and it was upon his own request that the case be brought forward for plea instead of proceeding with the trial, which has been scheduled in early August this year.

11.In the Secretary of Justice v Hii Siew Cheng and Another [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of between 4 to 6 years is called for.

12.In the present case, the ketamine involved is 31.48 grammes. For this quantity, I consider a starting point of 5 years to be appropriate.

13.I have considered all the matters put in mitigation for the defendant. The only mitigation is the defendant’s plea. He is going to receive one-third reduction for that and he is going to receive 40 months’ imprisonment for this offence.

14.However, as this offence was committed during the operational period of the suspended sentence, I see no reason not to activate the suspended term. In fact, for a suspended sentence to be effective, it should be taken seriously by the courts. (See e.g. R v Lee Kim Wai [1980] HKLR 833.)

15.I therefore order that the 3-month term imposed in respect of the possession of a dangerous drug offence on 17 July 2009 be activated in full.

16.Having considered all the relevant matters and the totality principle, I order that this suspended sentence should run wholly consecutively to the term of 40 months which I pass in respect of the present offence.

17.Defendant, stand up. You are therefore to serve a term of 40 months for the present offence. The 3-month term of the suspended sentence is also to be activated and to be served wholly consecutively to this 40-month term.