HKSAR v. Law Wai Yin

DCCC338/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 338 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2.The particulars of the offence admitted by the defendant disclose that on 10 February this year, at the staircase on the 16th Floor of 831 Canton Road in Yau Ma Tei, he unlawfully trafficked in 99.25 grammes of pure ketamine.

3.The defendant was arrested on the evening of 10 February. Police officers were keeping observation on that evening in the YauTsim District. At quarter past 7 in the evening two officers were ordered to lie in ambush at the Kam Wah Building on Canton Road in Yau Ma Tei. Shortly before 8 o'clock, whilst on the fire escape on the 16th Floor of the building, one of the officers saw the defendant dressed in black and noticed that in his right hand he had an object that was wrapped in tissue paper. The officer approached the defendant and discovered that in his hand he had two resealable plastic bags with white powder inside.

4.The defendant was arrested and searched again, and this time inside his underpants eight further packets were found of white powder. These packets were found to contain the drugs the subject of the charge. The value is $14,992. The defendant was later interviewed, but made no response.

5.The defendant has one previous conviction for possession of dangerous drugs. In 2008 he was ordered to go to a rehabilitation centre for that offence. I was told in mitigation that the defendant is now aged 20, and at the time of his arrest he was a student at a Project Yee Jing and was studying hotel management. I am told that he was studying there at the time of his arrest, and because of his studies he was allowed bail in connection with this matter in order that he could complete his examinations. I am told that he passed all but one of the subjects.

6.I am told that his father was a construction worker. He is now aged 64 and is not working. His mother, who is aged 60, is the sole breadwinner of the family. She works as a cleaning worker, earning some $10,000 per month. I am told that the defendant has two elder sisters who are not living at home, and he is the youngest member of the family and he lives at home with his parents.

7.I am told that it was the financial circumstances of his family which led to his commission of the offence. He tried to relieve the financial burdens of the family which fell solely on the mother. In regard to this offence, I am told that he met a person in a bar and he was given the opportunity to make some money selling drugs. Because of his financial situation he was persuaded to sell them, and I am told that his instructions are that he did not realise the seriousness of the offence.

8.I have before me two letters, one from the defendant's mother and one from his father. They are very moving letters, and they demonstrate the devastating effect the defendant's arrest and incarceration for these offences has had on both the mother and the father. They very much blamed themselves for the wrongdoings of their son. They blame themselves for their insufficient guidance and discipline during his formative years. I have the greatest sympathy for the defendant's parents.

9.This is obviously a very serious offence. The abuse of ketamine is a major social problem in Hong Kong, especially amongst young people. I do not accept the defendant's assertion that he did not realise the seriousness of the offence. In 2008 he was sent to a rehabilitation centre for possession of dangerous drugs, and I am sure during that time it would have been brought home to him how serious drug trafficking is.

10.The only mitigation in this case is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty to the offence. He is still only 20 years of age. As counsel has quite rightly pointed out, the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine indicate that for trafficking in quantities of between 50 and 300 grammes the appropriate sentence is in the range of 6 to 9 years' imprisonment. The quantity of drugs trafficked in this case is 99.25 grammes. That, in itself, would put it at the lower end of the range of sentences. I also take into account the relative youth of the defendant.

11.Weighing all those factors, I have decided to start at the lowest end of the sentencing range. I start at 6 years, and I reduce that by one-third to reflect the defendant's guilty plea.

12.The defendant will therefore go to prison for 4 years. I hope you use the opportunity to further your studies whilst you are at prison.