HKSAR v. Lee Ho Ming

DCCC 232/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 232 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant was originally faced with a charge trafficking of dangerous drugs, namely54.35 grammes of a powder containing 42.47 grammes of ketamine. He admitted possession. At the end of the trial, he was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs.

2.Pursuant to the requirement of a S. 54A of the DATC Ordinance, this court ordered a DATC report.

3.The DATC reported stated that the Defendant is no longer a drug addict.

4.The background information of the report was very much the same as stated in the trial.

5.The Defendant is 22 years old with clear record, his parents divorced when he was at tender age.  His father is a practicing solicitor in Hong Kong, mother is an Accountant clerk, and sister just finished her University degree in UK.

6.His relationship with his mother has long been very poor. Family support comes from his father who met him for dinner once a week and provided him with financial support.  His father undertakes to continue to support him.

7.The Defendant is considered as a black sheep in his family.  He dropped out from school because of his lack of interest.  He lost his job as a waiter in a Café in when it was closed down in 10/2010.  Since then he started to take drugs.

8.In mitigation, Mr. Tse emphasized that the Defendant had been in custody for about 5 months, he is now remorseful, he has been offered a job and enrolled himself into an English course.  His history of taking drugs was a short one.  The DATC report said that he was not a drug dependant any more.  In short, in view of all these, to pass a lenient sentence.

9.The Defendant submitted to me that according to the case in HKSAR v Song Chang Thai DCCC 115/2008, the Defendant was convicted of a charge of PDD, the quantity of the ketamine was about 44 grammes, the Court adopted a starting point of 15 months and added 6 months for latent risk factor.  The overall sentence of 21 months was reduced to 14 months.

10.The Defendant’s father had invited the Court to consider a suspended sentence. I entirely disagree.  This will give a wrong message to the general public.  A suspended sentence is definitely outside the sentencing options.

11.The drugs in questions involved amounted to about 42 grammes.  This is a substantial quantity.  It clearly carries with it a latent risk factor.

12.In HKSAR v Ho Har Kei CACC 378/2009, the quantity involved was 20.42 grammes of ketamine.  The Court considered that 18 months as the starting point and added 6 months to reflect the latent risk factor.  Given 1/3 discount to reflect the guilty plea.  The sentence was 16 months.

13.While in HKSAR v Cheng Kong Sang CACC 371/2008, the Court of Appeal substitute the conviction from TDD to PDD for a quantity of about 25 grammes of heroin.  The starting point was 20 months and added 10 months for the latent risk factors, total 30 months, after 1/3 discount, it arrives at 20 months.

14.In passing sentence, I bear in mind of all the mitigating factors and the authorities before me.  In the present case because of the substantial quantity of drugs involved, I considered that 20 months as the starting point is appropriate and added 7 months for latent risk factors, I also reduced the sentence to 18 months because of the  his guilty plea.

15.The Defendant is sentence to 18 months.