HKSAR v. Lin Kam Hang

DCCC75/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 75 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a single charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.The particulars of offence aver that the defendant, on the 25th day of November, 2011, at a staircase between 6th floor and 7th floor, Hong Mei House, Cheung Hong Estate, Tsing Yi, New Territories in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 53.15 grammes of a powder containing 25.73 grammes of ketamine.

3.The summary of facts which was admitted by the defendant is simple and straightforward.  It was a stop and search case.  In the evening, at around 7.32 pm, on 25 November 2011, PC734 and his team was patrolling at the staircase between the 6th floor and the 7th floor of Hong Mei House, Cheung Hong Estate, Tsing Yi, where they saw the defendant acting furtively there and thus intercepted him for a search.  As a result of the search, the police found two transparent resealable plastic bags, E1 and E2, containing powder which were found inside the left inner pocket of the defendant’s jacket. 

4.The defendant stated that a friend asked him to take custody of both E1 and E2, and asked the police officer to give him a chance.  He had with him HK$1,400 at the time of arrest and a mobile phone. 

5.On the same day, the police escorted the defendant to his residence, which is situated in Room C, 605 of the same building or house search, but nothing suspicious was found.  In a subsequent cautioned video record of interview the defendant elaborated that it was a male called Ah Kin who asked him whether he would like to earn quick money.  Ah Kin handed the two packets of ketamine to the custody of the defendant and asked the defendant to return the drugs to him at the Mong Kok MTR station later in the evening in return for a reward of HK$500.  As confirmed by the Government Chemist, E1 and E2 contained the exact quantity as he is now being charged.  The estimated street value of the drugs seized was HK$5,791. 

6.The defendant is now aged 27.  He is single.  In the past he appeared in court in four different occasions.  On his last conviction, which was already in 2001, in relation to a “possession of dangerous drugs” charge, he was sentenced to DATC in Tsuen Wan Magistracy. This afternoon his lawyer, Mr Karbhari, informed the court that the defendant came from a family where he is the middle son and he had an elder brother as well as a younger brother.  His mother is in court today but his parents divorced about ten years ago when the defendant was still a teenager. 

7.Mr Karbhari also informed the court that the defendant has, in the last three years, working as a driver of a company, earning a monthly income of about HK$10,000.  A letter, which was from the employer stated that the defendant’s performance in the job was good all along.  More importantly, the employer still would like to continue to employ the defendant upon his release. 

8.Among the letters of mitigations submitted to the court, a District councillor Miss Lam also wrote to the court and asked me to consider the defendant’s uneventful upbringing and that the defendant has to grow up in the absence of the care and the love of his father. 

9.Trafficking in dangerous drugs is of course a very serious offence.  Any person who is caught and convicted of this offence will normally be expected to be dealt with severely by the court.  In serious cases such as the present, the Court of Appeal has said so many times before that family circumstances virtually play no part in the mitigation.  The quantity of drugs involved is the single most important consideration.  The present case involved ketamine, and according to the tariff guidelines concerning ketamine laid down in the case of Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 233, the tariff for trafficking in ketamine in a quantity between 10 to 50 grammes is said to be between 4 to 6 years.

10.For this present quantity, I consider that a starting point of 5 years is appropriate.  According to the antecedent statement, the defendant is not a drug addict.  Although he has in the past “a possession of dangerous drugs” record, that was already more than 11 years ago.  In sentencing, I treat that the defendant purely committed the present offence out of his greed for earning quick money. 

11.The only effective mitigating factor is therefore his plea of guilty for which he will be given the normal one-third discount.  After the reduction, the sentence is reduced to 40 months’ imprisonment.