HKSAR v. Lam Hoi Kit

DCCC 373/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 373 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The amount of drugs in Charge 1 is 12.39 grammes of a powder containing 9.63 grammes of ketamine, and the dangerous drugs of Charge 2 is 117.71 grammes of a powder containing 82.65 grammes of ketamine.

2.The facts of this case are very straightforward.  On 14 February this year, in the afternoon, the defendant boarded a taxi.  He arranged the taxi driver to make two stops, the first being in Ma On Shan, and then after that, he would proceed to Choi Wan Estate in Wong Tai Sin.  When the taxi arrived at Ma On Shan, defendant got out and left the taxi driver with $100 and his bag.  This bag was left on the backseat.  Obviously, he expected to come back and continue his journey.  He did not expect to get arrested.

3.In Yiu On Shopping Centre in Ma On Shan, an astute police officer spotted the defendant.  His suspicions were right and he suspected the defendant was up to no good.  He stopped and searched the defendant.  The search took place in a disabled toilet of the shopping centre.  In a pocket of the defendant’s jacket, this police officer found one bag of ketamine.  That is the dangerous drugs of Charge 1.

4.Meanwhile, the taxi driver, seeing that the defendant had not returned, picked up other customers and left Ma On Shan.  Within a couple of hours, he took the defendant’s bag to Sau Mau Ping Police Station.  It was there that the police officers in Sau Mau Ping Police Station found the dangerous drugs of Charge 2.  In the defendant’s bag, they found 20 packets of ketamine.

5.When the defendant was arrested in Yiu On Shopping Centre, he admitted that he was trafficking in dangerous drugs.  He told the police officer that he did it because he was unemployed and had a young son. 

6.In a further interview, he told the police that all the drugs belonged to him and he was trafficking them for a monetary reward of $100.  I am not sure I believe that anyone would do this for $100 but there is certainly no evidence the defendant is a mastermind.  On the facts, the defendant is acting - and upon his own admission - acting as a courier, a drug mule.  However, drug traffickers cannot operate without couriers.  Defendant may not be the mastermind and acting only as a cog in the wheel but a courier is a vital cog.

7.Defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty and his previous clear record.  I have taken into account the defendant’s background.  He is 24 years old, has a young family.  Not only does his own family rely on him, his parents rely on him.  He, when he was working, was a transportation worker earning about $10,000 a month.  He contributed his income to his family.  In early 2014, he became unemployed.  Because of financial difficulty, he agreed to act as a drug courier. 

8.His parents are here in court as is his wife, and I take their presence as being evidence of support for the defendant.  Sadly, not only does the defendant have to accept responsibility for this offence but he has to accept that this offence causes his own family to suffer.

9.Defence counsel has said all he can say on the defendant’s behalf.  Quite rightly, he has explained to the defendant that there is a guideline for trafficking ketamine, and I have to take into account the authority of the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  The relevant guideline from that authority is that where between 50 and 300 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, an appropriate starting point would be between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.

10.Here, the total quantity of ketamine is 92.28 grammes, worth just over $15,000.  When I take that guideline into account, mathematically, this quantity of ketamine would attract a starting point of about 6 years and 7 months.  Defendant, there are two charges here but both took place on the same day, and I will take a global approach.  I will take an overall starting point for the total amount of dangerous drugs.  To come to a starting point, I have taken into account your plea, your previous clear record, your age, family circumstances and the reason for committing this offence as well as the facts of the case, the quantity of drugs and mitigation put forward.

11.After considering all those factors for this total amount of ketamine, I will take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.  You have pleaded guilty.  You are entitled to a discount of one-third.  That is a discount of 2 years.  You will serve a total sentence of 4 years. 

12.I intend to sentence you as follows.  For Charge 1, I will impose a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment; Charge 2, a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.  I order both sentences to be served concurrently.  That is a total of 4 years’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Yes.