HKSAR v. Lam Pan Ho

DCCC1014/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1014 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant enters a plea of guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, preferred against him under section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

Facts

2.The facts to which the defendant agrees are as follows.

3.For about two years before the date of the offence, the defendant had been out of a job.  Two aged members of his family had fallen ill.  So the defendant decided to purchase dangerous drugs for resale to earn quick moneys.

4.On the afternoon of 8 July 2011, the defendant bought from a person called ‘Ah Chun’ about 10 grammes of ‘ice’ for $4,000. 

5.Minutes later, a team of police officers saw him walking around furtively at the staircase on 8th Floor of Central Terrace, Sai Wan Estate.  They intercepted him for inquiry and found inside the cigarette packet that he was holding a transparent plastic bag containing what was later confirmed to be a crystalline solid weighing 9.96 grammes with 9.36 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride in it.  The defendant told the officers he had the ‘stuff’ for consumption.

6.The officers proceeded to conduct a house search on the defendant’s home.  They found an electronic scale, some aluminium foil, and 17 transparent plastic bags. 

7.In the end, the defendant admitted to the police that he had intended to sell seven grammes of ice to a friend at $4,000, keeping the remaining three grammes for his own use.

Conviction

8.The court finds the defendant guilty as charged.

9.The defendant has had a clear record before his current conviction.

Mitigation

10.In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration.

11.The defendant, now 27, has had a clear record and he chose to plead guilty to the charge - a serious one - to demonstrate remorse. 

12.As to the defendant’s background, counsel submits that the defendant has worked as a hair-stylist for some 10 years, until about three years ago when he invested his entire savings of $50,000 to $60,000 into the salon business. 

13.The investment failed, however, not due to any lack of  diligent application on the defendant’s part, but because of certain construction work in front of the salon which seriously affected his business. 

14.The defendant then fell into the company of bad peers and became a drug addict. 

15.The defence has a bundle of mitigation letters placed before the court.  The letters show that the defendant has a loving family, who are all present in court to show support to him. 

16.The defendant is described in those letters as a good son and a caring brother, who has gone astray because of his drug problem. 

17.The defendant’s parents do not enjoy good health, and have suffered even further in the period of the defendant’s remand. 

18.The whole family join in a strong plea for leniency for the defendant.

19.Counsel for the defence relies on the case of HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau, Ice CACC366/2000, and urges the court to adopt a reduced starting point to take account of the fact that part of the dangerous drugs seized in this case was for the defendant’s own use.

Discussion

20.Drug abuse poses a constant threat to the well-being of the society.  It wrecks a person’s life, sometimes beyond hope and repair.  It ruins families and breeds crime, ad hoc and organised. 

21.Even those who have successfully fought and overcome their addiction, which is itself a most painful process, their personalities and emotional make-up can be marred for life; employment opportunities for them are very often limited; and the prospects of their reintegration into the society are grim. 

22.What often awaits drug addicts and ex-drug addicts is extreme poverty over sustained periods and a life without self-esteem.  As a result, the society suffers beyond measure.

23.In the instant case, the defendant is admittedly a drug abuser; at the relatively young age of 27, he has been unemployed for some two years.  He has been unable to pursue his childhood dreams of studying in Japan because of his drug problem.  His personal experience bears witness to the harmful and destructive effects of drug abuse. 

24.Drug traffickers are responsible for the spread of this vice habit.  The duty is upon the court to play its part in the fight against drug trade, to see to it that no one would be in any doubt that the society does not tolerate criminal conduct involving drug deals. 

25.The particular dangerous drug with which the court is concerned is ‘ice’.  It can be cheaply produced and is highly addictive - even more so than heroin.  It causes delusion by affecting the central nervous system, resulting in toxic psychosis similar to paranoid schizophrenia.  Prolonged use of it can cause damage to the lungs, the liver, and the kidneys.

26.The Court of Appeal has laid down a sentence guideline for trafficking in ‘ice’ (Ching Kwok Hung’s case).  For zero to ten grammes of ‘ice’ an offender is found to have trafficked in, the appropriate sentence range is one of three to seven years’ imprisonment. 

27.In this case, had the defendant intended to traffic in 9.36 grammes of ‘ice’, a starting point of six and a half years could not be faulted. He told the police - and the prosecution do not seek to dispute this - he has intended to traffic in seven grammes of ‘ice’.  An appropriate starting point for that alone should be in the region of five and a half years’ imprisonment.

28.But possessing three grammes of ‘ice’ for consumption is not an innocent act.  In the court’s view, this is an aggravating factor that should be taken into account.  However, the defendant has had a clear record prior to his current conviction and he pleads guilty at the first opportunity.  The court is prepared on all mitigating material advanced on the defendant’s behalf to adopt as low a starting point as possible.

Conclusion

29.In the result, the appropriate starting point is one of five and a half years’ imprisonment, which is reduced by one-third to reflect the defendant’s clear record and guilty plea to one of three years and eight months’ imprisonment.

Order

30.The defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and eight months.