HKSAR v. Lo Ka Ming

DCCC1245/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1245 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.On the day of the offence, a team of police officers intercepted the defendant as he emerged from his residence at Wah Fu Estate, Aberdeen, Hong Kong, and executed a search warrant on the defendant’s premises.

4.On top of a cabinet in the living room was found a box containing four packets of a crystalline substance weighing 1.46 grammes with 1.39 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride in it, and six packets of a powdery substance weighing 12.43 grammes with 5.84 grammes of ketamine. Further, the police found an electronic scale and 76 small transparent plastic bags.

5.Under caution, the defendant said he had the “ice” for his own use and that he had the ketamine for sale.

6.The defendant now agrees that he had the “ice” and ketamine for trafficking.

Conviction

7.The court finds the defendant guilty as charged.  The defendant has had one record before his current conviction, which is drug-related.

Mitigation

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

9.The defendant is remorseful, he frankly admits to the charge. 

10.He has committed this offence due to work and financial pressure: working long hours overnight, and having to support his unemployed girlfriend and her son of three years old.

11.The defence urges the court to look at the two kinds of drugs globally, rather than follow an arithmetic approach in fixing the starting point.  It is submitted that the defendant is guilty of only one criminal act.

Discussion

12.Drug abuse poses a constant threat to the well-being of the society; no one should be in any doubt about this.  It ruins families, and breeds crimes, ad hoc and organised.  It wrecks a person’s life, sometimes beyond hope and repair. 

13.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 prospects of their reintegration into the society are grim. 

14.Drug addicts, and ex-addicts alike, would often find themselves living in dire poverty over sustained periods and a life without self-esteem.  In terms of social costs and loss, the society suffers beyond measure.

15.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 the drug trade, to see to it that no one would be in any doubt that the society does not tolerate criminal conducts involving drug deals.

16.The abuse of ketamine has in recent years become rampant in Hong Kong.  The Court of Appeal has laid down a sentence guideline for trafficking in ketamine (see SJ v Hii Siew Ching [2008] 3 HKC 323).  For the amount of ketamine the defendant trafficked in, the appropriate starting point is one of three years’ imprisonment.  There is no special circumstance in the instant case to justify a departure from this guideline.

17.“Ice” is a hard drug which can be produced cheaply. It is highly addictive, and once addicted, the habit is difficult to lose.  In some regards, it is even more harmful than heroin.  Hong Kong courts have recognised this fact and have provided a sentence guideline of about three and a half years for the amount of “ice” the defendant trafficked in.  Likewise, there is no reason not to adopt the guideline sentence.

18.The court accepts the defence submission that a global approach should be adopted, however, and considers that an appropriate starting point for the offence should be one of four and a half years’ imprisonment.

19.The defendant has had one criminal record prior to his conviction.  Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, none of his personal and family circumstances would warrant any further reduction in sentence.

Conclusion

20.In the result, the appropriate starting point is one of four and a half years’ imprisonment, which is reduced by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea to one of 3 years’ imprisonment.

21.The defendant is sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment of three years.