HKSAR v. Lok Kwok Wah

DCCC 481/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 481 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 13.46 grammes of a powder containing 11.67 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant reveal that in the evening of 17 April, 2012, police officers were conducting an anti-dangerous drugs operation in To Kwa Wan, Kowloon. At about 10.55 pm, the defendant was spotted by two police officers acting furtively at Mei Kwong Street junction with Kwei Chow Street and walking quickly towards Yuk Yat Street.  The police officers gave chase and finally intercepted the defendant at Kwei Chow Street near Yuk Yat Street, To Kwan Wan for enquiries and search. Upon search, one transparent re-sealable plastic bag containing the dangerous drugs the subject matter of the present charge wrapped in a piece of tissue paper was found from the defendant’s  right waist.  The defendant was arrested and under caution he admitted that the dangerous drugs was for delivery to others at Lok Shan Road.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview under caution, he admitted that the dangerous drugs contained in the plastic bag was ketamine and had been given to him earlier  in the evening on 17 April, 2012 by someone called Ah Ming whom he had met at a pub in Mong Kok 3 days earlier.  Ah Ming had instructed him to deliver the drugs to Lok Shan Road in To Kwa Wan for a reward of HK$50. At 10.45 p.m., he had gone to To Kwa Wan and awaited further instructions on the delivery, and was arrested. At the time of his arrest, he had on him HK$8,680.50 in cash. The street value of the said dangerous drugs was estimated to be HK$1,574.82.  Upon analysis by the Government Chemist, the re-sealable plastic bag was found to contain 13.46 grammes of a powder containing 11.67 grammes of ketamine.

3.The defendant is aged 46 years. In mitigation, I was told that the defendant was a single man.  He had been educated to Form 1. His parents, both in their seventies, live in Guangzhou, China.  He had been released from prison on 3 February, 2012 and was unable to find employment and had applied for CSSA. In March 2012, he worked as a substitute kitchen worker for Maxim’s at Telford Garden.  He lost the job at the end of March, 2012 when the worker returned to work and had been unemployed for about 2 weeks prior to the present offence.  He was very drunk on 17 April, 2012 when he met Ah Ming and agreed to deliver the dangerous drugs in question.

4.His criminal record dates back to 1983.  He has 19 previous convictions in 11 court appearance, including 11 related to the trafficking of dangerous drugs.  His most recent convictions were in 2002 and related to the trafficking of dangerous drugs, when he was sentenced to a total of 9 years’ imprisonment. The present offence was committed shortly after his release from prison.

5.Save for his plea of guilty, there is really little else in mitigation before me.

6.In the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng & Anor [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of between 4 to 6 years is called for.

7.In the instant case, the ketamine involved is 11.67 grammes.  For this quantity, I consider a starting point at the lower end of the tariff guideline would be appropriate, and I take as a starting point 4 years imprisonment, that is 48 months. The court has said time and again that there is a need for deterrence when dealing with offences like trafficking in a dangerous drug.

8.In the present case, the matters urged upon me cannot detract from the fact that a deterrent sentence is called for as our society needs to get the message that trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  The only mitigation which is of use here is the defendant’s plea, and for that, he will be given a one-third discount.

9.Therefore the starting point of 48 months will be reduced to a term of 32 months. The defendant is sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.