HKSAR v. Wong Kam Lung

DCCC 171/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 171 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.At around 4 pm on 2 January this year, police officers saw the defendant on board of a vehicle.  They conducted a search on him and found two plastic bags containing ketamine, E1, inside the left sock of the defendant.

3.The police also searched the defendant’s vehicle and found five plastic bags containing ketamine, E2.

4.Under caution, the defendant admitted that he intended to sell the drugs found on him and in the car.

5.E1 contained a total of 5.73 grammes of a solid containing 4.5 grammes of ketamine.

6.E2 contained a total of 14.18 grammes of a solid containing 11.02 grammes of ketamine.

7.The total estimated street value of E1 and E2 was around HK$2,400.

8.The defendant is aged 29.  He is married with a son aged seven.  His wife is a housewife.

9.The whole family lives on the income of the defendant, working as a casual delivery worker earning $400 a day.

10.The defendant received education up to Form 1.

11.He has two previous criminal convictions, one of which is for possession of dangerous drug for which he was placed on probation in March 2013. 

12.He was therefore in breach of the probation order when he committed the present offence. 

13.In mitigation, the defendant’s solicitor says the defendant is now very remorseful.  He committed the offence because of financial difficulty.  He asked the court to take into consideration the defendant’s frank admission and cooperation with the police at the time of arrest.

14.Trafficking in dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guideline in Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  For trafficking of ketamine from 10 to 50 grammes, the sentence should be from 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

15.I have considered everything said by the defendant’s solicitor and noted the contents of all the mitigation letters handed up to the court.  I do not find any special circumstances to depart from the sentencing guideline.  And therefore the only appropriate sentence is one of immediate imprisonment.

16.The total quantity of ketamine in the present case is about 15 grammes.  Having noted that the defendant’s criminal record is not a very bad one, I will take 4 years’ imprisonment as the starting point in this case.

17.I have read all the mitigation letters submitted to the court and found that nothing in the letters can form a basis to reduce the sentence.  Financial difficulty cannot be a mitigating factor for this kind of serious offence.

18.The only mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s plea of guilty for which he will get one-third reduction of the sentence.

19.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment. 

20.The probation order imposed on the defendant on 3 March 2013 is discharged.