HKSAR v. Lam Chun Kit

DCCC 123 /2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 123 OF 2012

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

____________________

Reasons for Sentence

____________________

Introduction

1.The defendant is convicted on his own plea of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 80.21 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

Facts

2.The facts admitted by the defendant reveal that at about 8:09 pm on 20 November 2011, the defendant was intercepted by PC6331 (“PW1”) and other police officers for enquiry. PW1 searched the defendant at the junction of Carpenter Road and Nga Tsin Long Road, Kowloon City, Kowloon. From the right rear pocket of the defendant’s trousers, PW1 found a total of 20 plastic bags containing 163.04 grammes of a powder containing 80.21 grammes of ketamine. Under caution, the defendant said that he had bought the ketamine from someone at the price of HK$3,200 in the afternoon on 20 November 2011, and that he had intended to bring the ketamine to Kowloon City with a view to selling it to a friend by marking up the price by HK$200. 

The defendant’s antecedents

3.Prior to the present offence, the defendant had a clear record.

4.The defendant was born in February 1993 and is now 19 years old. At the time of the offence, he was 18 and a Form 6 student.

Mitigation

5.In mitigation, it was submitted that the defendant was a good student with good academic record, and that his mother was suffering from carcinoma of ovary and his family was in financial difficulty. It was submitted that the defendant committed the present offence in order to earn quick money to help his family.

6.Four letters were submitted to this court. One of the letters was from the defendant’s school principal, two teachers and one school social worker. It was stated in that letter that the defendant used to be a good student (although it was stated in that letter that the defendant lacked interest in his studies), and that the defendant had won a few awards/prizes from extra-curriculum activities. The defendant, his parents and his cousin in their respective letters also asked this court for leniency saying that the defendant committed this offence because he wanted to earn some quick money to alleviate his family’s financial hardship, and that the defendant was remorseful.

Sentence

7.In Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng & Another [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking in a quantity of 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, the sentence should be an imprisonment of between 6 to 9 years.

8.I note that the defendant was 18 years old when he committed the present offence. However, the court has consistently held that for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, unless it is a case of extreme youth, young age carries little weight in mitigation. In the present case, the defendant was and is not a person of extreme youth.

9.Similarly, the defendant’s previous clear record carries very little weight in the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

10.I have full sympathy with the defendant’s family situation. Nonetheless, drug trafficking offences do call for substantial custodial sentence. Having considered the quantity of ketamine involved in this case and the defendant’s personal background, I am minded to adopt a starting point which is at the lowest end of the scale, i.e. 6 years’ imprisonment.

11.In light of the defendant’s guilty plea, I give him one-third discount thus reducing the sentence to 4 years’ imprisonment. There being no further mitigating features justifying any further reduction in sentence, the defendant is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.