HKSAR v. Lo Ka Kit

DCCC285/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 285 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant, Lo Ka-kit (aged 21) is convicted upon his guilty plea of a single charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs this morning before me, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

2.In sentencing, I have taken into account the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and the facts, in particular the nature and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, background of the defendant, as well as the mitigation put forward on his behalf. 

3.The case against the defendant is very simple. It is basically a stop and search case.  Acting on information, at about 7.22 pm on 31 January 2012, the police were conducting an anti-drug operation at the rear staircase near Flat B, 23rd Floor, Winner Building, Nos. 867 and 885 Canton Road, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon. 

4.The defendant was spotted by the police going up to the 23 floor of the building from the 22nd floor by the rear staircase, when he was seen holding a plastic bag.  The defendant was then intercepted by the police.  Upon search, some suspected ketamine (P1) was found inside the plastic bag that he was holding. 

5.The defendant was then immediately arrested and cautioned.  Under caution, he admitted that he had helped someone to deliver ‘K’ in order to earn some money.  He had only with him HK$180 when he was arrested.  In a subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant further admitted that it was only a few days before the date of the offence that he met a male called Ah Keung in a bar.  On the date in question, Ah Keung called him and instructed him to pick up a plastic bag near Gala Place Shopping Mall in Mongkok and deliver it to the others later.   He then picked up the said plastic bag as instructed and saw some white substance inside.  He then went home with the plastic bag.   

6.According to the Government Chemist certificate, what was found inside the plastic bag was indeed 250 grammes of a powder containing 100 grammes of ketamine.  The street value of P1 is estimated to be HK$27,575.91.

7.The defendant is aged 21.  In the past, he has two previous convictions of “possession of dangerous drugs”, the last being sentenced on 20 April this year in the Kowloon City Magistracy for a period of 6 months’ imprisonment.  He had only a Form 5 education level.  He actually left without completing Form 5 and then started working, firstly as a casual worker and later as a storage worker before he was arrested for the present offence.  

8.In mitigation, Mr Yip, solicitor for the defendant, informed the court that the defendant used to have a harmonious relationship with the family, which consists of parents who were both in their 40s and also an elder brother and a younger sister.  However, the defendant moved out from the family after having a row with his parents when he refused to sit for the Secondary School Certificate Examination and to have further education in 2007. It was exactly  when he was living apart from the family when there was no parental supervision that he was influenced by the bad peers to toy with ketamine for fun occasionally. 

9.Mr Yip further informed the court that the reason why the defendant committed the present offence was because he was desperately in need of money.  Shortly before he committed this present offence he was arrested for another the “possession of dangerous drug” offence for which he was given police bail but subject to stringent reporting police conditions which rendered him  unable to continue his work as a storage worker and foolish enough, he was induced by his bad peers to assist in the drug trafficking. 

10.The defendant was very remorseful now and today I was supplied with a letter written by the defendant himself indicating his remorse and his determination to turn a new leaf after serving the sentence. The mother of the defendant was also in court today to support her son and she asked the court to be as lenient as possible and to give a final chance to her son.

11.As regards ketamine, the harm the drug may bring to an individual and the community as a whole has been fully explored and recognised since the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  In that case, the Court of Appeal held that for trafficking in a quantity of 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, a sentence between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment should be considered. 

12.Having considered the whole circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to depart from the guideline as laid down in this case. 

13.Trafficking in dangerous drugs is of course a serious offence.  Anyone who is involved in this kind of criminal activity should expect to be dealt with severely by the court once caught.

14.The defendant is still young but he is by no mean extremely young.  He also has been working in the society for a few years before he was arrested.  He also had the experience of appearing in court before and he should know that he will be severely punished if he was involved, especially in trafficking activity. 

15.Usually for this kind of case, family circumstances virtually play no part in mitigation according to the Court of Appeal. 

16.I have sympathy for the defendant’s mother, who was very concerned with the welfare of her son, but I am afraid that is something which I cannot take into account when I come into sentencing.

17.If strictly applying the guideline, the starting point should be 6 years and 6 months.  There is only one point that I need to consider and that is his current sentence of 6 months which was only passed on 20th of last month, according to Mr Yip. 

18.There is always a well-known sentencing requirement that a sentencing judge must consider the criminality involved, not only in the offences for which the accused is being sentenced but also for which he is currently serving a sentence. 

19.In such circumstances, the court needs to adjust its sentence in a way which properly takes into account of his pre-existing sentence.  This is also called in aid the totality principle. 

20.The date of the commission of the last offence and also the present offence were also very close.  It is therefore for these reasons that I decided finally to reduce the starting point of the present case from 6 years and 6 months to 6 years, which is exactly the same starting point which has been suggested by Mr Yip.

21.For this reason, I shall adopt a starting point of 6 years only, and after giving the defendant the one-third discount on account of his guilty plea, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment but this sentence shall run consecutively to his existing sentence.