HKSAR v. LEE HON MING

DCCC 487/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 487 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Now, the quantity of drug is 57.28 grammes of a powder containing 39.39 grammes of ketamine and 3.0 grammes of a solid containing 2.62 grammes of ketamine. The total amount of drugs seized would be 42.01 grammes of ketamine. Defence agreed the facts. I convicted him of that offence.

2.  The offence occurred on 29 March this year, and the seizure of the drugs was made as a result of a police ambush at a residence in Kar Po Mansion in Castle Peak Road.  The seizure was made at the defendant’s residence which is in Flat A of 22nd floor of the building.  The defendant was arrested as he was leaving the building.  

3.  On a search of the premises, three transparent resealable plastic bags containing the suspected dangerous drugs, one further transparent resealable bag containing two further transparent resealable plastic bags were also found to contain dangerous drugs, and also there was a further resealable plastic bag found on the top of a water boiler inside the toilet.  Those seized drugs were found to contain the drug that is charged and the subject matter of the charge.

4.  Now, the estimated street value of the ketamine seized would be $7,000.

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

6.  Now, the defendant has admitted his antecedents criminal record.  He is aged just 17 years old.  He already has a substantial criminal record for someone of his age.  In 2012, he was convicted of offences of inviting or inciting another person to be a member of a triad society, blackmail, common assault and also possession of a dangerous drug and was sent to a drug addiction treatment centre with these convictions being recorded.  The defendant has had employment apparently as a storeman and chef. 

7.  Given his young age, I obtained a background report on him.  The defendant was, as pointed out by his counsel, was frank with the interviewing officer in the course of the compilation of this report. Now, the conclusion of the report was the defendant was brought up in a working-class family and an uneventful childhood.  Problems arose after his promotion to Form 1.  He started to, it says, toy with dangerous drugs at the age of 14, at a very young age.  He received a police caution at the age of 13, finally his sentence of drug addiction treatment centre in 2012.  It is apparent that on discharge from the drug addiction treatment centre in September 2012, he resorted to dangerous drugs and the undisciplined lifestyle.

8.  It is said that the defendant was frank with the interviewing officer.  He admitted to not thinking properly and not realising the serious consequences of what he was doing.  There is a plan that on his release from imprisonment he will take employment in the mainland.  And so the picture is of an unfortunate person who has become enmeshed in drugs at a very early age and also involved himself in serious criminality again at an early age.

9.  In mitigation, counsel points towards his plea of guilty, his frank admission.  He also has said that he would use up to a third of the drugs for his own consumption.  But of course that is in cases like this it is very difficult to quantify, and of course his young age, just 17 years old. 

10.  As far as the sentencing principles are concerned, his young age would not mean that he could avoid a substantial term of imprisonment for these kind of offences.  The courts have indicated on a number of occasions that the rehabilitative approach towards sentencing is not necessarily appropriate when one is dealing with trafficking in dangerous drugs.  And for a person of 17, that would normally be the approach the courts would take.  Unusually for a person of his age, he has already been to a drug addiction treatment centre.  So he has been subject to an unsuccessful attempt at a rehabilitative sentence.  It would appear the only realistic option left for the defendant, as acknowledged by counsel, is one of a sentence of imprisonment.

11.  There is of course a guideline sentence for the trafficking in this quantity of ketamine.  The quantity is 42.01 grammes. That would put it in the range of 10 to 50 grammes which is a guideline sentence of between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.  The quantity, if quantity alone is relied upon, would put it towards the upper end of that guideline. Nevertheless, the quantity of the drug is not the sole determinant of where the severity of the case lies on the spectrum of sentencing.  There are other factors I can take into account, such as the age of the defendant, the fact that part of the drug would have been consumed by himself.

12.  Taking all those factors into consideration and the factors put forward in mitigation, I have determined that the appropriate starting point for sentence within the range of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment is one of 4 and a half years’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled of course to his one‑third discount for that sentence which, by my calculations, gives a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment, and that is the sentence that will be imposed.