HKSAR v. Lee Kin Kit

DCCC14/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

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

2.The facts admitted by the Defendant are simple. In the night of 9 November 2010, the police found the Defendant acting in a furtive manner in Hoi Pa Street, Tsuen Wan. He was therefore intercepted. Upon a search conducted on the Defendant, 3 plastic bags containing the drug particularized in the charge, that is, a total of 59.92 grammes of a powder containing 45.95 grammes of ketamine, was found inside his right front trousers pocket. Under caution and during a subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted that he was delivering the drug to others for a reward of HK$200. The estimated retail value of the drug was about HK$6,900.  

3.The Defendant is aged 22 and is single. His parents were divorced when he was 6. At the time of the offence, he was living with his father and step-mother together with other siblings in a housing estate in Tsz Wan Shan. However, he also stayed with his friends in a flat in Sham Shui Po from time to time. The Defendant was born in the Mainland but was educated up to Form 5 in Hong Kong. After quitting school, the Defendant had worked as a kitchen assistant and a construction worker. At that time, he earned about HK$9,000 per month out of which he contributed about HK$3,000 to the family expenses and gave about HK$1,000 to his natural mother as pocket money. However, since October last year, he had been unemployed.  

4.The Defendant has been before the court on 2 previous occasions with 3 convictions. One for “possession of a dangerous drug” in respect of which he was fined in January 2008. However, one month later, in February 2008, he was sent to the Rehabilitation Centre for 2 counts of “assault occasioning actual bodily harm”.

5.In mitigation, it was said that as the Defendant did not receive sufficient parental support and supervision during his childhood, and that he had mingled with some dubious peers, he therefore committed the present offence. Mr. Cheng for the Defendant told the court that the family is, however, supportive and the Defendant gets along well with his own parents and his step-parents. A lenient sentence is asked for in order that he could start afresh as soon as possible.

6.In SJ v Hii Siew Cheng ＆ 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 4 to 6 years is called for. In the instant case, the ketamine involved is 45.95 grammes. For this quantity, I consider a starting point of 5 years and 9 months to be appropriate.

7.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. In the case before me, the Defendant is not a first offender and he is not of extreme youth. He has previous convictions and he has been sent to the Rehabilitation Centre and been given a chance to reform himself. However, it does not seem that he treasured the opportunities given to him in the past and, today, he is before the court again.

8.If, this time, the Defendant is indeed minded to mend his ways and to turn over a new leaf, then given his age, I can see that he can still be a useful member of the community and be able to look after his family as he has pledged in his letter. However, if he decides otherwise and engages himself in the drug business again, then it is not difficult to imagine that he will spend the rest of his life in and out of prison.

9.The Defendant pleaded guilty and he will be given a one-third reduction for his plea. Apart from that, there is nothing which I consider would warrant a further reduction in sentence, I therefore order that the Defendant is to serve a term of 46 months for the charge to which he pleaded guilty.