HKSAR v. Leung Chun Kit

DCCC 549/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 549 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant, Leung Chun-kit, a young man of 21 years old, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of “Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs”.

2.The offence in question took place on 26 March 2014.  The offence concerns 75.09 grammes of a powder containing 44.67 grammes of ketamine and 5.6 grammes of a solid containing 2.96 grammes of cocaine.  They were all found during a house search at the residence of the defendant.

3.Apart from the aforesaid dangerous drugs, the police also found one plastic spoon, two electronic scales, and 76 empty transparent plastic bags as a result of the house search.

4.The defendant was arrested for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.  The defendant admitted under caution that the drugs belonged to him and the drugs had nothing to do with his mother and girlfriend, who were also inside the premises at the time of the house search.

5.He told the police he was unemployed, and the drugs were for selling to others for money.  In a subsequent video‑recorded interview, the defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that:

(1) At 10.30 pm on 25 March 2014, he purchased 80 grammes of ketamine and 10 grammes of cocaine at $2,500 from a male named “Ah Loon”. He took the drugs from a flower bed at Po Tsui Park.

(2) The defendant then returned to the premises with the drugs. He measured and repackaged the drugs. He put the drugs into the cabinet of the bed to avoid the same being discovered by his girlfriend and mother.

(3) He planned to sell the drugs to others for money. He had never sold any drugs before.

(4) He lived in the premises alone.

(5) He used to have the habit of taking ketamine and cocaine, but he had already quit taking drugs.

(6) The electronic scales were for weighing the drugs.

(7) The folded banknotes found by the police were for testing ketamine.

6.The estimated street value of all the ketamine and cocaine seized was about $8,860.62 and $7,985.60 respectively.

7.The defendant has four previous convictions recorded against him.  In 2009, the defendant was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs, and was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.

8.Mr Tsu in mitigation asked me not to put too much weight to the previous drug-related conviction as it took place in 2009.  The defendant had quitted his drug addiction since then.  Mr Tsu told me on this occasion, the defendant could not resist the temptation to earn quick money by selling drugs.  He co‑operated with the police upon his arrest.  He admitted the offence under caution.  He is very sorry for what he had done.  He knows he has to go to prison for the offence in question.  Mr Tsu submitted a mitigation letter written by the defendant.  He also submitted a letter written by the father of the defendant. In both letters the defendant and his father plead for a lenient sentence.

9.In sentencing the defendant I have borne in mind the facts of this case, the nature of the drugs involved, and the quantity of the drugs involved.  This case involves two types of dangerous drugs, ie cocaine and ketamine.  Of the two, cocaine is more potent than ketamine, and I would take that as the base of the sentencing exercise.

10.For the quantity of cocaine in question, ie 2.96 grammes of cocaine, applying the tariff as set down in the case Lau Tak Ming, a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.  But the presence of the ketamine in question is indeed significant.  44.67 grammes of ketamine were found by the police.  In my judgment, the presence of the ketamine in question calls for an upward adjustment.  In my judgment, an upward adjustment of 3½ years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

11.In fact, in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leung CACC 318/2013, the Court of Appeal observed in paragraph 24 that the fact that the seizure of two or more types of dangerous drugs at the same time, even though separately packed and not in a prepared mixture, may lead to a possible aggravating feature The fact that the seizure of two or more types of dangerous drugs at the same time, even though separately packed and not in a prepared mixture, may lead to a possible aggravating feature, namely:

“It has been said that one aggravating feature is the ability of the trafficker to cater to a wider market (see the cases referred to in paragraph 11 of HKSAR v Yim Hung Lui, Ricky CACC 266/2011 unreported).”

12.In my judgment, a starting point of 5½ years’ imprisonment is appropriate for the drugs in question.

13.The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge.  He is entitled to the customary one-third reduction for his guilty plea.  That would bring his sentence down to 44 months’ imprisonment.

14.Apart from the guilty plea of the defendant, there is really no other mitigating factor that can further reduce the sentence that I am to impose on the defendant.

15.For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 44 months’ imprisonment.