HKSAR v. Lau Chi Ming
|
DCCC 529/2013 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 529 OF 2013 --------------------------
--------------------------
------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE ------------------------------------- 1.The defendant, Lau Chi Ming (aged 21) (male), originally faced two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug before me in the District Court, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. 2.The 1st charge allegedly took place on 27 March 2013, involving about 4 grammes of a powder containing ketamine. 3.After plea bargaining, the prosecution is contented that the 1st charge be left in the court file and not to be proceeded with when the defendant was convicted of the 2nd charge and admitted the summary of facts pertaining to that charge. 4.The particulars of the 2nd charge averred that the defendant on 28 March 2013 outside Room 2216, Block 2, Choi Wu House, Choi Yuen Estate, Sheung Shui, New Territories in Hong Kong unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 8.94 grammes of a powder containing 7 grammes of ketamine. Facts 5.The facts of this case is a simple, straightforward stop-and-search case. 6.At about 8:06 pm on 28 March 2013, the police was conducting an anti-drug operation outside Room 2216, Block 2 of Choi Wu House at Choi Yuen Estate, Sheung Shui, New Territories. The defendant was then spotted by the policemen walking from the staircase of the 22nd floor of Choi Wu House to Room 2216. The defendant suddenly lowered his head and tried to avoid eye contact upon seeing the police, whereupon he was intercepted and searched. 7.In relation to Charge 2, as a result, a bag of suspected ketamine and 39 empty resealable plastic bags were found in the rear pocket of his trousers. 8.The defendant was immediately cautioned by the police and under which he admitted that the bag was ketamine and it was for self-consumption and sale. 9.The police immediately arrested and cautioned the defendant again for trafficking in dangerous drugs. 10.Under caution, this time the defendant admitted that, in fact, the ketamine was for sale in order to earn some money. 11.The defendant had with him HK$440 and also a mobile phone when he was arrested. 12.In a subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant gave further details about how he came to traffic in the dangerous drugs:-
13.The drugs were later examined by the government chemist, which confirmed the nature and the quantity as to those as been referred in the charge. 14.The purity of the ketamine in the 2nd charge is 7 grammes. 15.The street value of the drugs is estimated to be only HK$847. Criminal record and background of the defendant 16.The defendant had a previous similar record of trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2010 in which he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment in the District Court. 17.I was told by his lawyer that he was released from the prison in December 2011. 18.The defendant had only a Form 3 education and, at the time of arrest, he was a motor technician, earning about $10,000 per month, a job which I was told he had been keeping since his discharge from the prison. 19.He is still single and he lives in Choi Wu House at Choi Yuen Estate together with his elder brother and his mother. Each month, he contributed $1,500 towards the family expenses. 20.The reason why he had once again committed this serious offence of trafficking was because he could not really kick the habit of drugs even though he has served his time in the prison. 21.As far as the present charge is concerned, I have enquired with the defendant’s lawyer, Mr Cheung, whether the whole lot of the dangerous drugs was for the purpose of trafficking and Mr Cheung had properly confirmed that this was the case. Sentencing considerations 22.Trafficking in a dangerous drug is, of course, a very serious offence, one which would normally be visited by a heavy sentence. 23.The defendant is already 21 years old. Although, of course, he is still young, he is not extremely young and immature any more. 24.Worse still, he had already been sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment in the District Court for a similar offence back in 2010. He should know better that once caught, he would be severely dealt with by the court. Obviously he had not learned the lesson. 25.He could not deal with his drug problem and that is why he landed himself into the trouble of the law again and is to be sentenced for yet another charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. 26.Today he wrote a letter to the court. He had indicated that he was very regretful and remorseful for what he had done. 27.He said that he could not lead a life such as this any more and he promised the court and his family members not to consume drugs any more in the future and he vowed to be a useful member of society and to learn some skills in the prison and rehabilitate himself and he asked the court for leniency. 28.I can only hope that what has stated in the letter was what was genuinely felt by the defendant and not just something which was said by him for the purpose of reducing his prison sentence. 29.This is already the second time he had been convicted of the same offence within a short space of three years but I still would not increase his sentence this time. 30.The defendant should be warned, however, that if he was to be convicted with any drug offence in the future, no doubt he would be treated as a recidivist and a repeat offender, and all the sentences that he would receive would have to be enhanced to reflect the gravity of the matter. 31.The dangerous drug involved in this case is ketamine. Ketamine is becoming very popular, especially among youngsters, so much so that the Secretary of Justice had in 2007 successfully applied to the Court of Appeal in the case of The Secretary for Justice and Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323 to revise upward the sentencing guideline for ketamine. According to the new revised guidelines, for the quantity between 1 gramme and 10 grammes, the sentences is said to be 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment. 32.In this case, the quantity involved is 7 grammes. 33.Applying the guideline, the appropriate starting point should therefore be 3½ years, which is 42 months. 34.The defendant pleaded guilty and for which he would be given a one-third discount and to me it is the only mitigating factor. 35.In the end, I sentence the defendant to 28 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment