HKSAR v. Lee Cheuk Ho

DCCC845/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 845 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 revealed that on the night of 15 June 2010 while the police were trying to execute a search warrant at Room 3711 of a housing estate in Tsz Wan Shan, the defendant appeared at the lift lobby and acted furtively.  He was therefore intercepted and a search was conducted.

3.As a result, 11 plastic bags containing the ketamine particularized in the charge, that is, a total of 139.07 grammes of a powder containing 97.41 grammes of ketamine was found inside the right back pocket of the defendant’s trousers. 

4.The defendant was arrested, and under caution, he admitted that he was delivering the ketamine for someone.  During a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant made the same admission and added that he went to the estate in order to borrow money from a friend as travelling expenses, and the reward for the delivery was HK$2,000.  The street value of the ketamine was estimated to be HK$16,688.

5.The defendant is aged 24 and is single.  He was born in the mainland and came to settle in Hong Kong in 1994 at the age of 8. He was educated to Form 4 level and he then started working as a construction site worker and a bar tender.  However, he was unemployed at the time of the arrest.  Prior to his arrest, he was living with his parents, a younger brother and a younger sister.  It was said that both his parents and his younger sister are in employment. 

6.Although the defendant is only aged 24, he has already been convicted on three previous occasions, one for assault, one for trafficking in a dangerous drug and one for possession of a dangerous drug.  In 2006, he was sentenced to Training Centre for his previous trafficking in a dangerous drug offence, but it would appear that he did not treasure the opportunity given to him to turn over a new leaf and now he is before the court again for yet another trafficking in a dangerous drug offence. 

7.If the defendant is not minded to mend his ways, it is not difficult to imagine that he may spend the rest of his life in and out of prison.

8.In mitigation, Ms Ip told the court that as the defendant is a drug addict and he had no employment and no money at that time, so he resorted to committing the present offence.  It was also said that the defendant was led astray by his dubious peers at his young age and he lacked self-discipline, but he is now remorseful.   

9.Ms Ip told the court that the defendant realizes that there are no mitigating factors in this case other than his plea, but he urges for as lenient a sentence as possible. 

10.In SJ v Hii Siew Cheng and Another [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine.  For trafficking 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of between 6 to 9 years is called for.  In the instant case, the ketamine involved is 97.41 grammes. For this quantity, I consider a starting point of 6½ years to be appropriate.

11.I have considered all the matters put in mitigation for the defendant, the only mitigation is his plea.  As said by Ms Ip, the defendant realizes this too.  Therefore, for his plea, the defendant will be given a one-third reduction.  The term of 78 months, that is the 6½ years, will be reduced to 52 months.

12.Defendant, stand up.  You are therefore sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 52 months.