|
DCCC1013/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1013 OF 2011
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Ho Ka-fai |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
H H Judge A. Wong |
| Date: |
28 October 2011 at 11.14 am |
| Present: |
Mr William Siu, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Ms Ip Wai-lin, Belinda, of Lily Fenn & Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)
(2) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. Defendant, you were convicted upon your guilty plea of one charge of possession of a dangerous drug (Charge 1) and one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug (Charge 2).
2. In sentencing I have taken into consideration the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the nature and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, your background and mitigation made on your behalf.
3. The facts of the case you admitted are straightforward and may be summarised as follows.
4. In the evening of 25 June 2011, you were stopped by police officers when you were seen acting nervously upon leaving a house in Yuen Long.
5. Upon search, a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 4.74 grammes of a powder containing 2.40 grammes of ketamine was found in your trousers pocket.
6. In a subsequent house search at your home the following items were found in a drawer of an unlocked cabinet in a bedroom. A big transparent resealable plastic bag containing 12 smaller transparent resealable plastic bags containing ketamine and the total quantity was 156.18 grammes of a powder containing 106.11 grammes of ketamine; two electronic scales; a spoon and some transparent resealable plastic bags.
7. Under caution, you admitted that the ketamine found on your person was for self-consumption and you intended to sell the ketamine found inside the house to earn some money. You said you had bought the dangerous drug from an unknown male and intended to divide the ketamine kept in the house into small packets of 1 gramme each and then sell them to others at $100 per packet.
8. I was told that you are 31 years of age. You were brought up by your mother alone. After having received Form 3 education, you started to work as a deliver worker earning about $15,000 a month. You provided financial support to your mother as well as your divorced wife and your daughter who is now 11 years old.
9. I was told you became lonely and depressed after your divorce in 2004 and started to consume dangerous drug to reduce your stress and unhappiness.
10. From a letter of your employer, I learned that when you were in employment you were conscientious, responsible and hard working. However, you had to quit the job since your dangerous drug consumption had significant adverse effect on your renal function and the frequent need to go to the toilet became a great hindrance to your work.
11. Having lost your job, you had to live on your savings and had difficulties in supporting your aged mother, who is not enjoying good health, and your divorced wife.
12. Your counsel stressed that it was only in these circumstances that you succumbed to the lure of earning quick money. She also stressed that you are now very remorseful and reminded me that you are a first time offender.
13. According to the guideline in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the tariff for a conviction after trial of trafficking in 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine is 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.
14. In all the circumstances, I do not consider there are in existence sufficient reasons not to follow the tariff. Ketamine has been shown to be a prevalent drug in Hong Kong. The harm to individuals and the community as a whole is tremendous. Although drug addiction is apparently your major problem, it is not appropriate to consider a sentence of DATC in view of the seriousness of the offence. Besides, there are suitable and abundant facilities in a CSD institution for you to get rid of the vice habit.
15. I bear in mind Silke V P said in case of R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370, that within the suggested bands, factors which the court may take into account included the profit which may reasonably be expected to be derived, the number of packets, the type of mixture containing the narcotic, the degree of involvement of the offender, his previous history of narcotic offences and matters of mitigation.
16. In all the circumstances, I am of the view that the following starting points are appropriate and sufficient to reflect the nature and seriousness of the case:
Charge 1 - 6 months;
Charge 2 - 6½ years.
17. You pleaded guilty and are therefore entitled to a one-third discount. In all the circumstances I consider this is the extent of discount you are entitled to. Undoubtedly, your family, in particular the little girl, will suffer, but this consequence is something which you should have taken into consideration before you embarked on committing this serious offence rather than to use it as a factor to ask for a lenient sentence.
18. Based on the matters aforesaid, I sentence you to 4 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1 and 52 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2. Having regard to totality, I order the two sentences to run concurrently. As a result, you are to serve a total sentence of 52 months’ imprisonment.
|