HKSAR v. LEUNG KA CHUN

DCCC 1064/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1064 OF 2015

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1. The defendant, Leung Ka Chun, appeared before me and pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  The charge concerned 110.14 grammes of a powder containing 69.64 grammes of ketamine.

2. The facts admitted by the defendant reveal that on 31 October 2015, at around 5:10 pm, the defendant was smoking next to a private car parked near a lamppost on On Shing Street, Ma On Shan, New Territories.  The defendant was seen behaving in a suspicious manner, hence he was intercepted by the police. 

3. During enquiry, the defendant appeared nervous.  He was searched and one yellow zipper bag was found in his right rear trousers pocket.  Inside the zipper bag were: (1) nine transparent resealable plastic bags, eight of which each contained one transparent resealable plastic bag inside, containing the drugs in question; (2) 12 empty transparent resealable plastic bags, one mobile phone and HK$51 were also found on the defendant.

4. He was arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug.  Under caution, the defendant said that he had been caught red-handed.  In a subsequently held video-recorded interview, the defendant said under caution, inter alia, the following:-

(1) He knew the yellow zipper bag seized from his trousers pocket contained ketamine;

(2) He collected the zipper bag earlier on the same day in Lei Muk Shu Estate from a drug supplier and obtained instructions by phone. That phone was discarded at the spot where he collected the zipper bag. Though he never checked the contents of the zipper bag, he knew it contained drugs;

(3) The mobile phone seized from him at the time of his arrest was his personal phone and he had not used it for communicating with drug supplier or customers;

(4) He was promised a remuneration of HK$500 per day. He committed the present offence as he was in financial difficulty;

(5) The petty cash was his own earnings from odd jobs;

(6) This was the first time he delivered drugs for others;

(7) He had been unemployed for three months.

5. The retail price of the ketamine seized is estimated to be around HK$14,097.92.

6. The defendant is not a drug addict. 

7. The defendant admits that he was in possession of the ketamine seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. 

8. The defendant has two previous conviction records.  In year 2008 he was convicted of common assault.  He was placed on probation for 18 months.  In 2011 he was convicted of robbery and he was sentenced to be detained at a training centre.

9. The antecedent statement of the defendant says that he is now 25 years old.  He was unemployed at the time of his arrest. 

10. Mr Chan told me in mitigation that the defendant grew up in Hong Kong and he had received Form 4 education.

11. The defendant’s parents are in court today to show their support for the defendant.  The parents of the defendant had written mitigation letters for the defendant and asked for leniency from the court. 

12. The defendant has a very stable girlfriend and he treats his girlfriend as his fiancée.

13. Mr Chan told me that the defendant committed the offence in question because of financial reasons.  Previously, the defendant operated a logistic company and he earned thirty to forty thousand dollars per month.  Two ex-employees of the defendant left the defendant’s company with the clients of the defendant.  The defendant was in financial hardship and he was unable to repay the loans that he owed to others.  He was approached by some criminals and he was persuaded to commit the crimes in question.

14. The defendant deeply regrets what he had done.  He confessed at the first available moment, ie at the time of his arrest.  He co-operated with the police.  He pleaded to the charge, hence saving a lot of court’s time and money. 

15. Mr Chan urges me to adopt a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.  He submits that the defendant has no previous similar conviction and asks me to deal with the defendant as lenient as possible.

16. In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the nature of the drugs in question and the quantity of the drugs.  I have considered the facts as admitted by the defendant and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Chan.

17. I have also borne in mind the tariffs as set down by the Court of Appeal in Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  The defendant trafficked in a total quantity of 69.64 grammes of ketamine.  Applying the tariffs as set down in Hii Siew Cheng, I agree with Mr Chan that a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. 

18. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and he co-operated with the police all along, he is entitled to the customary one-third reduction.  That would bring the starting point down to 4 years’ imprisonment. 

19. For the above reasons, I sentence the defendant to 4 years’ imprisonment.