HKSAR v. Leung Pak Ho
|
DCCC576/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 576 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 and are not unfamiliar. In the night of 29 March 2011, the police found the Defendant acting suspiciously near Ting Kok Road. He was therefore intercepted. Upon a search conducted on the Defendant, 4 cigarette boxes with a total of 12 plastic bags containing the drug particularized in the charge, that is, a total of 159.46 grammes of a powder containing 120.89 grammes of ketamine, was found on his person. Under caution at the scene and during a subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted that he was delivering the drug to others for a reward of HK$100 per bag.
3.The Defendant is aged 21 and is single. His parents got divorced when he was 3. He then lived with his mother until he was 16. Afterwards, he lived with his grandmother and his 2 uncles in a public housing unit. 4.The Defendant completed his Form 5 education but his academic results were not good enough to secure for him a place in Form 6. He then started working as a transportation worker but was fired after 3 months. 5.It was said that after the Defendant had lost his job, he was in a low mood and he got acquainted with a friend who induced him to take drugs and who asked him to deliver drugs in order to earn some quick money. The Defendant agreed and that was why he committed the present offence. 6.The Defendant has been before the court on one previous occasion with two convictions, both were assault charges. He was put on probation for 12 months in respect of those convictions. 7.In mitigation, it was said that the Defendant received positive comments from his teachers and he was not a bad student. Insofar as his previous convictions were concerned, it was submitted that there was nothing similar and those convictions were recorded almost 5 years ago. A lenient sentence was asked for in order that he could start afresh as soon as possible. 8.Letters written by the Defendant and his mother were given to the court. In gist, the Defendant expressed his remorse over what he has done and his mother promised to guide the Defendant back onto the right track. Given the Defendant’s relatively young age, if he were indeed minded to mend his ways and to turn over a new leaf, it would appear that he would still have a future 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 trade again, then it is not difficult to imagine that he will spend the rest of his life in and out of prison.
9.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 aged 21 and is not a first offender although his previous convictions were not drug-related. 10.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 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of between 6 and 9 years is called for. 11.In the instant case, the ketamine involved was 120.89 grammes. For this quantity, and taking into account the facts disclosed, I consider a starting point of 6 years and 9 months to be appropriate.
12.The Defendant pleaded guilty and he will be given a one-third reduction for his plea. Apart from that, there is nothing before me which could entitle him to any further reduction in sentence. 13.I therefore order that the Defendant is to serve a term of 54 months for the charge to which he pleaded guilty.
|
Cases cited in this judgment