HKSAR v. Lam Chun Hang and Another

DCCC 204/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 204 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Both the 1st and the 3rd defendant pleaded not guilty to trafficking dangerous drugs and were subsequently convicted after trial.

2.I will not repeat the facts or my findings, I gave full reasons in my verdict.

3.I found that the 3rd defendant handed the 1st defendant 41 packets of ketamine with a total of 12.04 grammes of pure ketamine and I found the 1st defendant acted as a courier to take them away.  I found there to have been direct evidence of trafficking and convicted the defendants accordingly.

4.As far as mitigation goes, I have had some background detail from the 1st defendant.  He is 24 years old.  And I have seen a letter from his elder sister asking for leniency and certain certificates from when he was younger showing he has participated in the boy scouts, youth centre activities and some voluntary work.  Sadly, his sister says that he got involved with drugs when he made some dubious friends which went as far as changing his character.  She says that he is remorseful and wants to turn over a new leaf.

5.The defendant has one previous conviction.  It is possession of dangerous drugs and in 2011 he was sentenced to probation for 12 months.  He has no previous conviction for trafficking dangerous drugs. 

6.The 3rd defendant, I have heard evidence that he is 41 years old, a divorced father of two daughters and does have previous convictions but nothing similar to trafficking dangerous drugs.

7.His last conviction was in 2007 where he was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre order for possession of Part I poison.  His previous convictions prior to that were when he was a teenager.

8.As rightly pointed out, I am bound by the authority of The Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  In that authority the Court of Appeal has set out appropriate sentencing guidelines.  The relevant guideline for this case is that where there is between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine trafficked, a starting point of between 4 to 6 years would be appropriate.  There is no reason for me not to follow this guideline. 

9.I have also considered the different roles played by the 1st and 3rd defendant and I will not differentiate their roles nor will I treat them differently as far as sentencing is concerned.  I also see no reason to take into consideration that part of the drugs was for own consumption, part for trafficking.

10.I have taken into account the facts of the case, the quantity of dangerous drugs, mitigation put forward and the authority that I am bound to follow.  Accordingly, I will take a starting point of 4 years.  I see no reason for any discount; both defendants are convicted after trial.

11.1st defendant, for Charge 2, you are accordingly sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.  3rd defendant, for Charge 1, you are accordingly sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.