HKSAR v. Hung Man Lung

DCCC346/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 346 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 120.31 grammes of a powder containing 63.46 grammes of ketamine. Such offence is contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134.

The Facts

2.The facts of this case can be summarised as follows.  At about 3.45 pm on 8 February 2012, the police was conducting an anti-drug patrol in Sau Mau Ping area.  They spotted the defendant acting furtively outside the entrance of Shun Tin Estate Car Park B, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.  The police intercepted the defendant.  Upon search, a plastic bag contained 120.31 grammes of a powder containing 63.46 grammes of ketamine was found in the right pocket of the defendant’s jacket.  The defendant was arrested.

3.Under caution, the defendant admitted that:

(1) that about a month prior to his arrest, he met someone called “Tsz Kin” in a disco at Tsim Sha Tsui who asked him to deliver drug;

(2) that on 8 February 2012, Tsz Kin called him and instructed him to pick up for him a bag of ketamine behind a rubbish bin in Shun Tin Estate Car Park.

(3) that Tsz Kin promised to give him $1,000 as a reward after he had done so; and

(4) that at the material time, he owed someone HK$30,000 and was in need of money. He therefore picked up the said drug as instructed but was then arrested.

4.The street value of the said drug is estimated to be $12,993.48.

The Defendant’s Background and Mitigation

5.The defendant, aged 23, was a truck driver.  His parents and three elder sisters are gainfully employed.  The defendant has a previous conviction of possession of dangerous drug in February 2008 whereby he was sentenced to a rehabilitation centre.  Upon his release in August 2008, the defendant claimed that he was gainfully employed as a cleaner and then a truck driver.  He managed to earn $10,000 per month.  He claimed that he was a responsible son and made regular monthly contribution of $2,500 to his parents.  It was two months before he was arrested that he became unemployed. 

6.It is revealed in the antecedent statement of the defendant that he was a drug addict of methamphetamine hydrochloride (known as “Ice”) and no longer living with his parents but a casual friend despite the fact that he was jobless.  If the defendant was a responsible child as he claimed and being the youngest and only son in the family, it is expected that his family members would turn up in court to show their support and concern. Regrettably, none of his parents nor siblings appeared in court. 

7.Apparently, after the defendant was released from the rehabilitation centre in 2008, he did not take the chance of mending his ways but continued to indulge himself in taking dangerous drug. Eventually, he committed the present offence which is of a much serious nature by trafficking in large quantity of ketamine.   

8.Apart from his guilty plea, this court sees no remorse from the defendant.

Sentencing Guidelines

9.The Court of Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng CAAR7 of 2006 laid down sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine after trial.  It was held that 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine would warrant a 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.  Between 50 grammes and 300 grammes of ketamine, the sentence would range from 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.

Sentence

10.In the instant case, the quantity of pure ketamine involved was 63.46 grammes.  Having fully considered the background of the case and that of the defendant, the mitigation advanced by the defence lawyer, the prevalence and the gravity of the offence and the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal, this court considers the appropriate starting point would be 6 years’ imprisonment.  Nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to one-third discount for his guilty plea and have his sentence reduced to 4 years’ imprisonment.

11.There were no other circumstances which would justify any further reduction in sentence.  This court now imposes a 4 years’ imprisonment.