HKSAR v. Lau Siu Kuen

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 75/2012 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 December 2012.

Cites 2 cases

Case No.HCCC 75/2012
Court
High Court CFI
Date17 Dec 2012
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC75/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 75 OF 2012

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

  HKSAR  
  v.  
  Lau Siu-kuen  
------------------
Before: Hon E Toh J
Date: 17 December 2012 at 10.31 am
Present: Mr Andrew Cheng, SPP(Ag) of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Ms Lisa Yip, instructed by Messrs Tang & Lee, for the Accused
Offence:  (1) Trafficking in a dangerous drug(販運危險藥物)
  (2) Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts on the Indictment . The 1st count is trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 1.92 kilogrammes

of a powder containing 1.58 kilogrammes of ketamine. The 2nd count, he pleaded guilty to, is possession of a dangerous drug, namely 0.29 grammes of a powder containing 0.13 grammes of ketamine.

The facts are simple in that on 10 September last year at about noon Customs officers noticed the defendant seated in his medium goods vehicle looking around suspiciously so they approached him and conducted a search of the vehicle and the dangerous drugs in count 1 were found in a shopping bag placed next to him.

Under arrest and caution the defendant admitted that he was waiting to deliver these drugs and he would be receiving HK$400 for each packet delivered by him and in his custody were eight packets of ketamine.

In the glove compartment near the driver’s seat was also found a packet of ketamine which is the subject matter of the 2nd count. The defendant admitted under caution that this was for his own consumption.

The total street value of the seized dangerous drugs were in the region of HK$226,594.22.

The defendant is aged 37 and has a clear record. The defendant was first before this court on 4 October this year and he had asked for a change of counsel and decided not to plead. On 12 December he had instructed Ms Yip to appear on his behalf and Ms Yip indicated to the court that the defendant will plead guilty.

The matter was brought forward to today in order for the defendant to plead guilty.

Now, in mitigation Ms Yip did explain on the defendant’s behalf why it was that the defendant had delayed his plea until today. It was all due to a miscommunication between him and his counsel at that time. So under those circumstances I will not hold it against the defendant in the matter of discount.

In mitigation, Ms Yip had painted a picture of the defendant who is hardworking and worked for his sister for about 12 years in her transportation company. He appeared to have no bad habits until he was introduced to taking ketamine by his friends.

He, however, had decided a month prior to his arrest to try and kick his drug habit and had registered with the Lutheran Church’s Rainbow Centre. On the day of his arrest he had been asked to deliver those packets of dangerous drugs for a reward. There have also been many letters from his family and friends and girlfriend.

It is clear to me that Ms Yip has said everything that she possibly can say in mitigation on his behalf.

It is also clear to me that the defendant comes from a close‑knit family and he is very lucky to still have the support of his family and girlfriend. However, the court has to view offences of this nature with great severity.

For every drug trafficker arrested many thousands go undetected, and for every quantity of drug that slips through the net and gets distributed to the young people in our society, has caused many, many tragic consequences for many, many families.

The court, recognising this, has, as Ms Yip pointed out, in the case of Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, laid down guidelines for trafficking in ketamine. So for a trafficking in over 1,000 grammes of ketamine a sentence of 14 years upwards is recommended. In this case the amount in count 1 is 1.58 kilogrammes of ketamine. I consider a reasonable starting point would be one of 15 years’ imprisonment.

Ms Yip has submitted a case which is HKSAR v Ng Hon Keung, CACC 211 of 2011, where the Court of Appeal approved a starting point of 16 years’ imprisonment for 1.7 kilogrammes. I have already said that I accept the explanation which Ms Yip had pleaded on behalf of the defendant and I will give him the full one-third discount.

So, reducing it by one-third the defendant will be sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on count 1.

On the 2nd count, I consider a starting point of 18 months to be appropriate, reduced to 12 months because of his plea. This sentence will be served concurrently to the sentence in count 1.

So the defendant will go to prison for 10 years.