HKSAR v. Lam Kam Tin

DCCC959/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 959 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty 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.Briefly, the facts were that during an anti-narcotics patrol conducted by the police in Upper Wong Tai Sin Estate, the defendant was found walking furtively.  He was therefore stopped and was searched.  As a result, the drug particularised in the charge, that is, a total of 27.04 grammes of a powder containing 19.92 grammes of ketamine, was found hidden in one of his socks.  At the time, the drug was kept in two transparent plastic bags.

3.After his arrest and under caution, the defendant admitted that he was helping another to deliver the drug.

4.The defendant is now 18 years of age and has only received up to Form 1 education.

5.Despite his young age, the defendant has already been before the court on four occasions, with seven theft-related convictions and two convictions for possession of a dangerous drug.  He was put on probation in November 2004, was sent to Shatin Boys’ Home in May 2005, and was sent to the Rehabilitation Centre in 2008.

6.I adjourned sentence until today in order to obtain a background report on the defendant.

7.The report disclosed that prior to his arrest, the defendant lived with his family in a very crowded environment.  His academic performance was below average.  It was said that the defendant later mingled with some dubious peers and he then committed the theft offences.

8.However, the probation order, which was imposed as a result of his theft convictions, did not seem to have much effect, and he was sent to the Shatin Boys’ Home for yet another theft offence.

9.After his release from the Boys’ Home, he started to take ketamine, which led to his possession of a dangerous drug convictions, and in respect of which he was sent to the Rehabilitation Centre.

10.However, the training in the Rehabilitation Centre did not appear to be able to guide the defendant back onto the right track.  He admitted to the probation officer compiling the report that after he had been released from the Rehabilitation Centre, he then became a drug dealer, which subsequently led to his arrest for the present offence.

11.The probation officer was of the view that the defendant was indifferent during the interview, although he indicated that he would like to be a professional driver in the future.

12.In mitigation, it was said that the defendant is remorseful and has pleaded guilty.  Mr Liu, for the defendant, told the court that the defendant has supportive sisters and he only committed the offence because of bad peer influence.

13.This morning, Mr Liu also handed to the court two letters begging for leniency, one written by the defendant himself and another written by the defendant’s elder sister.  The defendant emphasises that he is now remorseful and is determined to turn over a new leaf.  He therefore asks for a lenient sentence.

14.The court has said time and again that there is a need for deterrence when dealing with offences like trafficking in a dangerous drug, and that age carries little weight in mitigation.  See, for example, R v Lau Tak Ming and Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370 and SJ v Ko Fei Tat [2002] 4 HKC 59.

15.In the case before me, the defendant is not a first offender and he is not of extreme youth.  He has previous convictions, including theft and possession of a dangerous drug, and he has been given a number of opportunities to reform himself.  He has been put on probation, has been sent to a Boys’ Home and the Rehabilitation Centre.

16.However, it does not seem that he treasured those opportunities given to him in the past, and today he is before the court again.

17.The defendant now indicates that he is minded to mend his ways.  Given his age, if he is indeed determined to do so, it would appear that there will still be a future for him.  If, however, he continues with his present drug dealings, it is not difficult to imagine that he may be in and out of prison for the rest of his life.

18.The guidelines for trafficking in ketamine were laid down in the SJ v Hii Siew Cheng and Another [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  For trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine, the term of imprisonment should be between 4 and

19.In the present case, since 19.92 grammes of ketamine were involved, I consider a starting point of 4½ years to be appropriate.

20.The defendant will get a one-third reduction for his plea.  Apart from the plea, I do not see any other mitigating factors.

21.The term of 4½ years will therefore be reduced to one of 36 months’ imprisonment.

22.Defendant, stand up. 

23.You are therefore to serve a term of 36 months’ imprisonment.