HKSAR v. Li Chun Pong

DCCC 76/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 76 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Introduction

1.The Defendant is convicted upon his own guilty plea of the charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 244.2 grammes of a powder containing 39.33 grammes of ketamine.

2.The facts admitted by the Defendant reveal that:

(i)  At about 1935 hours on 22 November 2010, the Defendant was stopped and searched by the police at Nanking Hotel, 1^st Floor, No.23 Mong Kok Road, Kowloon. Inside the bag the Defendant was carrying, 2 plastic bags each containing a powder were found;

(ii)  Under caution, the Defendant admitted inter alia that:

(a)  The substance found was “K Chai” and he intended to sell it to others in order to earn some quick money; and

(b)  On 22 November 2010, the Defendant met “Ah Keung” in Mongkok and “Ah Keung” told the Defendant that the Defendant would receive a reward of HK$5,000 if the Defendant helped deliver 2 bags of “K Chai” from Tai Po to Mongkok. The Defendant agreed to do so.

(iii)Upon examination, Government Chemist found that one of the bags seized from the Defendant contained 244.2 grammes of a powder containing 39.33 grammes of ketamine, and that the other bag seized contained 459.97 grammes of a powder which did not contain any controlled substance.

Previous conviction record and antecedent

3.The Defendant has 19 previous criminal convictions from 1996 to 2008, but none of those convictions are related to dangerous drugs offences. For the purpose of this sentence, I am not going to take into account his previous convictions as an aggravating factor.

4.According to the antecedent statement in relation to the Defendant, the Defendant was born in September 1978. He is now 32 years old. He has received education up to Form 1 level. He was last released from prison in October 2010.

Mitigation

5.In mitigation, it was submitted that the Defendant’s guilty plea was the strongest mitigating factor. That I will give him the usual 1/3 discount.

6.The Defendant’s representative also informed me that the Defendant came from a broken family, that his mother had left him when he was very small so much so that he never knew who his mother was. I have full sympathy towards the Defendant’s background but it is not a mitigating factor justifying any reduction in sentence.

Sentencing tariff

7.In Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking in a quantity of 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine, the sentence should be an imprisonment of between 4 to 6 years.

Sentence

8.The quantity of ketamine trafficked in the present case was 39.33 grammes. I consider it appropriate to adopt a starting point of 5½ years’ imprisonment.

9.In light of the Defendant’s guilty plea, I give him 1/3 discount thus reducing the sentence to 44 months’ imprisonment. There being no other valid mitigating factors justifying further reduction in sentence, the Defendant is sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment.