HKSAR v. LEUNG YUAN MING

DCCC 738/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 738 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in 40.69 grammes of ketamine and was convicted accordingly.

2.  The facts of the case are straightforward.  At about 9:45 pm on 23 June 2014, the police officers spotted the defendant acting furtively outside Hong Sau House, Block F, Tsz Hong Estate, Tsz Wan Shan.  The police officer conducted a body search on the defendant.  From the defendant’s left armpit area, the officer found a piece of tissue paper containing four transparent resealable plastic bags.  These plastic bags contained ketamine. The defendant was also found to have $8,709 and a mobile phone.

3.  The officer arrested the defendant and, under caution, the defendant admitted that he received $300 from one ‘Bao Chai’ as a reward for delivering the four packets of ketamine.  The defendant further admitted that it was his first time to deliver drugs for Bao Chai. 

4.  Government chemist confirmed that the four plastic bags contained a total of 51.03 grammes of a powder containing 40.69 grammes of ketmaine.  The street value of the drugs so seized was estimated to be around $6,022.

Mitigation

5.  Today the defendant was represented by Mr Harris, Senior Counsel, who submitted that there are strong mitigating factors for the 18-year-old defendant.  The defendant had a clear record and pleaded to the charge.  The defendant has a supportive family, and his parents and family members are in court today to show their support.

6.  It was submitted that the defendant falls into bad company, and the trafficking activity lacked sophistication.  Counsel also explained why the defendant had $8,700 odd cash with him.  Out of the sum, $5,000 odd was for the school fee and $3,000 was to pay for a holiday to Taiwan.  When asked, counsel was instructed that there was no autopay arrangement for school fee.

7.  It was further submitted that this was the first and only time that the defendant had anything to do with drugs, let alone trafficking in dangerous drugs.  The defendant is not a drug addict and comes from a supportive and close family.

8.  Defence counsel also tendered medical reports and a number of mitigation letters from a lifelong friend of the defendant’s parent, the family doctor, the class teacher and the principal of Times College.

9.  Defence counsel also asked if there would be other options to deal with the defendant and suggested to call for background report and/or other pre-sentencing reports to assist the court.  Counsel also asked this court to sentence the defendant as leniently as possible.

Sentence

10.  I have no doubt that the defendant has a close and supportive family for which he should be grateful.  However, it is apparent that the defendant just took things for granted and did not realise how lucky he was.  He was made use of by the drug syndicate and was willing to trafficking in drugs for a meagre sum of $300.  The street value of the ketamine so seized was about $6,000 odd.  The defendant had cash of $8,700 odd with him.  There was no evidence to suggest that the cash was the proceeds of the drugs trafficking.

11.  The medical report of the defendant stated that the defendant has been suffering from allergic rhinitis since the age of 3 and had a history of flat feet.

12.  A family friend of the defendant’s parent, Dr Yue, described the defendant as a good boy possessing a genuine and lively personality with an essential goodness of character.  Another family friend, Dr Chan, said he has been with the family for 40 years and said the defendant has learned his lesson after this isolated incident.

13.  The principal of Times College described the defendant as an intelligent and hardworking boy and his overall performance was satisfactory.  The defendant’s class teacher said the defendant has his highest recommendation and was regarded as an intelligent and capable student.

14.  The defendant had a clear record.  Against this background, it is sad to see that a young man failed not only himself, but also his parents and family friends. 

15.  The courts always take a serious view of drugs trafficking, and that applies to young and first offender.  Since June 2008, the Court of Appeal has promulgated and increased the sentencing guideline for trafficking in ketamine.  In normal circumstances, trafficking in ketamine between 10 grammes to 50 grammes attracts a starting point of 4 to 6 years.

16.  The present case involves a total of 40.69 grammes of ketamine.  As such, I would adopt a starting point of 5½ years. 

17.  I have to say the defendant’s plea is a wise move as the evidence against him is strong, otherwise he would have to face even a longer sentence if he were convicted after trial.  His guilty plea would entitle him to have one-third discount in sentence which leads to an imprisonment term of 44 months.

18.  However, I have confidence that with the unfailing support of his parents, the defendant learned a real hard lesson and will turn a new leaf.  I am sure he will not re-offend and will become a law-abiding citizen and a filial son who is to be proud of by his parents.  To this end, I further reduce his sentence by 4 months and sentence the defendant to 40 months’ imprisonment.