HKSAR v. Li Ka Ming

Case No.HCCC 281/2010
Court
High Court CFI
Date05 Nov 2010
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC281/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 281 OF 2010

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

  HKSAR  
  v.  
  Li Ka-ming (A2)  

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

Before :

Deputy High Court Judge E Toh

Date :

5 November 2010 at 9.41 am

Present :

Mr W T Chiu, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Cheung Kin-bor, Michael, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd Accused

Offence :

(2) & (3) Trafficking in a dangerous drug(販運危險藥物)

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to the 2nd charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 28.23 grammes of a powder containing 16.49 grammes of ketamine. He has also pleaded guilty to the 3rd charge which is also trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 356.92 grammes of a powder containing 244.19 grammes of ketamine.

On the date of the offence, the 2nd defendant was seen walking with the 1st defendant and upon a search of the 2nd defendant found, in the right front pocket of the 2nd defendant’s jeans, was a transparent resealable plastic bag of ketamine. This is the subject matter of the 1st charge.

Upon a search of his home, inside his premises were found, in a TV cabinet, more drugs, two electronic scales and two bundles of empty transparent resealable plastic bags. The drugs found at his home are the subject matter of the 3rd charge.

The total amount of ketamine found both on his person and at his home amounts to 260.68 grammes. It was worth $43,136 in January this year.

Because of the defendant’s age, which is 17, I called for a Probation Officer’s background report. The defendant has been in trouble before in 2008, when he was given probation but he failed to keep up with the terms. He was given and supposed to reside at home and had a curfew. Unfortunately, two months after that, he was charged with possession of dangerous drugs and he was sent to a reform school.

According to the Probation Officer’s background report, his behaviour in the juvenile home was bad and he indulged in rule-breaking behaviour and cheating. His After Care Officer from the reform school said, after his discharge, the defendant failed to take up a job steadily, appeared to be wilful and failed to observe curfew requirement. A letter to recall him to go back to the reform school was issued on 14 January this year but he became involved in the present offence on 15 January. The defendant disclosed that he committed the present offence for easy money.

The background of the defendant is that he comes from a broken home; his parents divorced in late 1990, when he was about 6 years old. He lives with his family, his paternal grandfather and grandmother, and he came to Hong Kong in the year 2004. His mother sees him occasionally as she has emigrated elsewhere. Upon being interviewed by the Probation Officer, it seems his father is very concerned about him and his paternal grandmother too, and they hope that he will turn over a new leaf and cut his bond with his dubious friends.

It appears, therefore, that the defendant is a very mature 17-year-old. He is so mature that, in order to make easy money, he has a large quantity of drugs at home, where he has packaging material, where he has empty resealable plastic bags, he has electronic scales. The only mitigation I see in this case is the fact that he has pleaded guilty.

The sentencing for ketamine, the guideline has been laid down in the case of Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR7/2006. In relation to the guideline for trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine, it would merit a guideline sentence starting point of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

The defendant, in the 2nd charge, has a total of 16.49 grammes of ketamine so I would consider a starting point of 3 years to be appropriate, reduced to 2 years because of his plea. In relation to the sentencing guideline in the same case, the Court of Appeal recommended that for trafficking in between 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, the sentence starting point should be one of 6 to 9 years.

In this case, if one adds up the total of drugs found on the defendant and at his home, the amount is 260.68 which would merit a sentence starting point of 8 to 8½ years’ imprisonment. I consider, therefore, that on the 3rd charge, a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate and reducing it by one-third, it would be reduced to 64 months’ imprisonment.

Considering the totality principle, I will make the sentences in Charge 2 and Charge 3 concurrent, so the defendant goes to prison for 5 years and 4 months in total. Hopefully, he will have time to learn a trade before he comes out.