Case Document

DCCC 499/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 499 OF 2014

____________

	HKSAR
	v
	LAI KWAI PO

____________

Before:

HH Judge Dufton

Date:

1 September 2014

Present:

Mr Richard Turnbull, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Miss Sezen Chong, instructed by So Lung & Associates
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant

Offences:

(1) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
(2) Possession of a Part 1 poison
(管有毒藥表第Ｉ部所列毒藥)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant stands convicted after trial of one charge of trafficking in 37.27 grammes of a powder containing 27.35 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134 (charge 1). At the beginning of trial the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of 41 tablets containing a Part 1 poison, contrary to sections 23(1), 33(1) and 34 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, Chapter 138 (charge 2).

2.Full particulars of the offences are set out in my verdict delivered early this afternoon. In summary at about 5:40 p.m. on the 29 March this year the police intercepted the defendant when he left his home at Flat A on the second floor of No. 429 Shanghai Street. The police found inside a red bag carried by the defendant four transparent plastic bags, three of which were later found on examination to contain the ketamine. Also found in the bag were the 41 tablets containing a Part 1 poison.

3.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Miss Chong including that the defendant has no previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

4.In Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng[2008] 3 HKC 325 the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for trafficking in ketamine. Where the narcotic content is between 10 and 50 grammes sentence after trial falls within the range of 4-6 years imprisonment. I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial for 27.35 grammes of ketamine is 4 years and 9 months imprisonment.

5.Miss Chong submits by reason of the defendant’s long term drug addiction I should, notwithstanding the reasons for verdict, accept part of the drugs were for the defendant’s own consumption. Having found that the drugs were all for trafficking and that the explanation given to the police that he was taking the drugs outside to place somewhere randomnly was a deliberate and material lie, there is in my view no basis upon which to consider part of the drugs were for the defendant’s own consumption.

6.Miss Chong also submits that the defendant having agreed all the prosecution case and not called any evidence should be given a 25% discount in sentence. The same submission was made and rejected in HKSAR v Chan Chi Wah CACC 250/2004, a case where the applicant had also been convicted of trafficking having suggested that the drugs were for his own use.

7.For the reasons given in that case I am satisfied this is not an appropriate case where a discount should be given for agreeing the prosecution case and not calling any witnesses. The defendant is convicted and sentenced on charge 1 to 4 years and 9 months imprisonment.

Part 1 poison

8.Taking into account the 41 tablets were possessed together with the ketamine I am satisfied a short custodial sentence is appropriate. In the circumstances I take a starting point of 3 months imprisonment. Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment which I order to be served concurrent to charge 1.