HKSAR v. JIM KAR HO

DCCC 660/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 660 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty today to trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely, 7.3 grammes of a solid containing 5.92 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The defendant is a 22-year-old young man and on the date of the offence, 29 January 2015, he was clearly a target sought by the police.  Armed with a search warrant, the police stopped the defendant near his home whilst he was on the way home.  Under the authority of that warrant, the police entered the defendant’s home not long after.  Police information was accurate and upon a body search, they found ketamine on the defendant.  They found a plastic bag containing 5.13 grammes of a solid containing 4.08 grammes of ketamine as well as two mobile phones and some cash.

3.  During a house search, the police found more ketamine, a plastic bag containing 2.26 grammes of a solid containing 1.84 grammes of ketamine.  The police also found paraphernalia associated with packing drugs, namely, small empty resealable plastic bags, an electronic scale as well as a plastic spoon.

4.  Under caution, the defendant admitted possession of ketamine for his own consumption as well as for selling to others.

5.  The defendant is not a man with a clear record. However, he has no previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  Of his four convictions, he has one for possession of dangerous drugs and was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre order in 2010.  Of his other three convictions, two include section 19 wounding offences.

6.  I have heard mitigation in full, and everything that can be said has been said on behalf of the defendant.  As I have said, the defendant is 22 years old.  He married in May this year and became a father in March this year.  This was one of the reasons, I have been told, that led to his offence.  Worrying about the financial implications of a child led to stress and, unfortunately, dubious peers led him to become involved with drugs.  I am told the defendant is remorseful, regretful and determined to become a good father and husband.

7.  I have had three letters of mitigation, one from his wife, another from his mother as well as a social worker.  I have taken their contents into account.

8.  I have also been told the defendant comes from a broken family and was brought up by a grandmother from the young age of about 3 years old.  Because of this, he is not close to his parents but has recently become reconciled with his mother.  As a product of a broken family, I hope he does not want the same for his own son.  If, as promised, the defendant does not turn over a new leaf and stay away from dangerous drugs, sadly, the life of his son may mirror his own life.

9.  There are guidelines that apply for trafficking ketamine, and I have referred myself to the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  According to that authority, the appropriate guideline here would be where between 0 to 10 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, a starting point of between 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

10.  The defence submit that some of the ketamine was for his own drug habit and consumption.  The defendant did tell the police this upon caution.  Plus I note he does have a previous for possession of dangerous drugs where he was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre order.  The prosecution do not challenge this aspect of the mitigation.

11.  The Court of Appeal has said on numerous occasions that in such a situation, it can be appropriate, to give a discount from the normal starting point.  I have referred myself to the authority of HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121.  A more recent authority, HKSAR v Tsang Chung Keung CACC 165 of 2014 discusses that previous authority as well as other similar cases.

12.  The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty today.  I take that into account as well as mitigation put forward.  I take into account the letters I have received and the promises made by the defendant not only to the court but to his own family.  I have also taken into account and accept the submission that some of the ketamine would have been for his own use. 

13.  With this quantity of ketamine, I would have taken a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  I am going to reduce that starting point by 6 months.  That is a reduction for the submission that part of the ketamine would be for the defendant’s own consumption.  That is a discount of just over 15 per cent.

14.  Therefore, the starting point is reduced to 30 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant has pleaded guilty, and he is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea.  After that discount is applied, a discount of 10 months, for this offence, the defendant is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Yes.