HKSAR v. LAM CHI PING

DCCC 670/2021

[2022] HKDC 457

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 670 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant is convicted on his own plea and agreement to Summary of Facts to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a)  and (3)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.  At around 3:58 am on 30 March 2021, police officers were on patrol near Lamppost No FA5126, Liu To Road, Tsing Yi, New Territories, Hong Kong when they noticed the defendant sitting at the driver’s seat of a parked taxi bearing registration mark WJ1259.  The defendant was intercepted for enquiry.

3.  Upon search, a small tin can was found in a shoulder bag which was placed at the front passenger’s seat, the same contained 1 transparent resealable plastic bag containing 13 smaller transparent resealable plastic bags containing a total of 8.27 grammes of a solid containing 7.03 grammes of ketamine.

4.  The defendant was arrested for possession of a dangerous drug.  He admitted under caution that the drugs was for his own consumption.

5.  The estimated street value of the drugs seized was about HK$4,606.

6.  The defendant had on him cash of HK$600 and 2 mobile phones at the time of arrest.

7.  At the material time, the defendant possessed the drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Criminal Record

8.  The defendant has a clear record.

Mitigation

9.  Defence counsel submitted that the defendant is a man who used to have a clear record, and that he committed the present offence because he wanted to earn quick money.

10.  It is said that as the defendant has indicated his guilty plea at the first available opportunity, he should be entitled to full one-third sentencing discount.

11.  He submitted that the tariff for ketamine trafficking in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323 dictates the starting point for trafficking 7.03 grammes of ketamine should be around 40 months’ imprisonment.  It is further submitted that because of the one-third sentencing discount, the sentence in this case should be 26 months’ imprisonment.

12.  Defence counsel further pointed out to this court that under section 69(1)(h)  of the Road Traffic Ordinance, the court may disqualify the defendant’s driving licence for a period as the court thinks fit if the court is satisfied that the vehicle concerned was used during the course of commission of the offence.  He submitted that the defendant had no intention to use the taxi to traffic the dangerous drug in this case.

13.  He also submitted to the court mitigation letters from the defendant, his elder sister and his son.  These letters say that the defendant is now deeply remorseful for what he has done and he hopes to reunite with his family and start afresh upon his release from prison, and that all of his family members are supportive of the defendant in his rehabilitation.

Discussion

14.  Before sentencing, this court has considered all mitigation submissions advanced on behalf of the defendant.

15.  Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence and upon conviction on indictment, a person is liable to a fine of HK$5 million and life imprisonment.  Personal background is seldom a valid mitigating factor.

16.  As conceded by defence counsel, the sentencing starting point for trafficking 7.03 grammes of ketamine is 40 months’ imprisonment.

17.  It has been said that the defendant is not a drug user and that he committed the offence in order to earn fast money, which obviously is not a mitigating factor.

18.  The defendant has pleaded guilty.  He is therefore, as said by the defence counsel, entitled to one-third full sentencing discount, which is the most valid and the only valid mitigating factor in this case.

19.  For this reason, defendant is sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment.

20.  Whilst this court is suspicious the defendant was using the vehicle in question at the time of arrest for the commission of the offence, on this occasion the court is not going to invoke section 69(1)(h)  of the Road Traffic Ordinance and is not going to disqualify the defendant from his driving.