HKSAR v. LAW KIN CHUNG

DCCC 218/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 218 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, and one charge of trafficking dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. 

Summary of facts

2.  On 18 December 2016, the mother of the defendant reported to the police when she found the defendant had some substance like tobacco traces on his clothes and inside a plastic bag.  Police arrived and found the defendant was lying on the bed and :-

a. found two plastic bags containing a total of 2.42 grammes of cannabis in herbal form and

b. one plastic bag containing traces of herbal material containing tetrahydro cannabinol,

c. another plastic bag found in the defendant’s wardrobe containing 59.2 grammes of ketamine.

3.  Under caution, the defendant said that the cannabis were given to him by Keung Gor for his own consumption.  He consumed them because he was in a bad mood.  He bought the ketamine on 16 December for $6,000 from Keung Gor.  Keung Gor told him that he could earn three times of its cost by selling it.

4.  The street value of ketamine was estimated to be $57,828.

Previous conviction

5.  The defendant has a clear record.

Mitigation

6.  The defendant is 20 years old, single, lived with his mother prior to the present remand.  His father passed away in 2004. After leaving school, the defendant started to work as a pastry chef, but due to low income, he changed to work in a teahouse as a waiter earning about $14,000 per month.

7.  At the time of the offence, he had an argument with his ex-girlfriend and under the bad influence of his friends, he started to abuse drugs by taking cannabis.  The commission of the present offence was to earn more money to support his family as his mother is now becoming frail, cannot work long hours. 

8.  He has a number of letters from his mother, his neighbour, his old-time friends, the church and his former school teachers to mitigate on his behalf.  All ask for leniency.

Sentence

9.  As said before, the defendant has a number of mitigating letters before me.  His mother said that when the defendant started to work in the teahouse, his behaviour had significantly taken a turn.  He lingered in the bar until early hours in the morning and ignored his mother’s advice.  At the material time, his mother reported him to the police because the defendant was out of her control. 

10.  His mother has done the right thing by calling the police.  In fact, the present remand is a wake-up call to the defendant. His mother still said good words about the defendant that he was in fact not a bad person.  All the other letters from the defendant’s friends, teachers and the church not only mitigated on his behalf to plead for leniency, they are also here in court to show their support to the defendant. 

11.  The defence urge this court to take a lower starting point because of his personal circumstances, the good support from his own circle and that he is genuinely remorseful.

12.  Time and time again, the court has stated that drug trafficking is an evil business, and the courts have repeatedly emphasised that whoever carries on such an evil business, irrespective of his/her background or the circumstances in which the offences are committed, can expect no mercy. 

13.  There are sentencing guidelines for trafficking in different types of dangerous drugs.  Dangerous drugs are in fact like different types of diseases or cancer in our society.  They should be eliminated.  It will be the defendant’s wishful thinking that the court will take a lenient approach when passing sentence in this sort of serious offence.

14.  Having heard the mitigating factors from the defence, I consider that it is his guilty plea is in his favour.  Against this background, as to Charge 1, the total amount of cannabis is 2.42 grammes and with traces of a herbal material containing tetrahydro cannabinol, I adopt a starting point of 3 months reduced to 2 months.

15.  As to Charge 2, it was 59.2 grammes of ketamine.  The sentencing guideline of Hii Siew Cheng CAAR 7/2006 should apply.  It falls into the sentencing bracket of 6 to 9 years.  I adopt a starting point of 6 years reduced to 4 years because of his guilty plea.

16.  Charge 1 and 2 to run concurrently.