HKSAR v. LAU CHUN WA

DCCC 946/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 946 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.  The 1st charge is dated 26 April 2014 and involves 1.77 grammes of a powder containing 1.47 grammes of ketamine. Charges 3 and 4 are dated 14 August 2014 and therefore were committed whilst on bail. On that date, the defendant was arrested again.  For Charge 3, the drugs involve 24.3 grammes of a powder containing 21 grammes of ketamine.  For Charge 4, the drugs involve 11.8 grammes of a powder containing 10 grammes of ketamine.

3.  The total quantity of ketamine for Charges 1, 3 and 4 add up to 32.47 grammes.

4.  The facts of this case are as follows.  On 26 April the police raided a cyber café in Sheung Shui, New Territories.  They found the three defendants, and the 1st defendant is to be sentenced today, sat at computers.

5.  Under the 1st defendant’s computer, the police found a total of six plastic bags containing a total of 1.47 grammes of ketamine.  They also found one electronic scale, a ruler and a bundle of plastic bags.

6.  On CCTV footage obtained of the material location, the police could see bags of white substance passed between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendant and an unknown person during the course of that evening before the raid.

7.  Under caution, the 1st defendant denied all knowledge of the dangerous drugs found.

8.  The street value of the drugs in Charge 1 is estimated to be $208.90.

9.  Whilst the defendant was on bail for this trafficking offence, he was arrested 3½ months later again for trafficking dangerous drugs. 

10.  On 14 August the police approached the defendant on the street and saw the defendant throw an object onto the ground.  The object was later found to be a piece of tissue containing two plastic bags containing a total of 21 grammes of ketamine.  The police then seized keys found on the defendant and escorted him home to search the premises.  The police had a search warrant.

11.  The police found cash of $6,550, two $100 notes containing traces of ketamine and, lastly, they found a plastic bag containing 11.8 grammes of powder containing 10 grammes of ketamine.  In addition, there were some 18 resealable plastic bags located.

12.  The defendant admitted possession of the dangerous drugs for his own consumption, not for trafficking. 

13.  The street value of the drugs in Charges 3 and 4 add up to $4,223.

14.  I have heard mitigation.  The defendant is 19 years old, had a clear record and came from a broken home.  Because of these facts, I called for a training centre report despite the seriousness of the charges.

15.  The report is of the opinion that the defendant is drug dependent and therefore not suitable for consideration for admission to training centre.

16.  I have been told the details of the report are correct.  I will not repeat the content.  It sets out the defendant’s family background, how he came from a broken home and was ultimately brought up by an aunt.  At school he performed well whilst in primary school but dropped out in 2010 as a result of mixing with undesirable peers in Fan Ling area which led to a triad association.  Due to no parental control, the defendant did what he wanted including dropping out of school.

17.  Sadly, by 2012, he had started to consume ketamine and told the officer in the training centre that he was given ketamine free because he sold dangerous drugs.  A year later he also dabbled in cocaine.  When he did leave school, there was a short employment history.  Nothing significant or lasting more than a few months, and this is because the defendant found it easier to make money from selling drugs. 

18.  He told the officer, and I have previously been informed that he sold drugs to make money because he wanted to help his mother with her medical bills.  I have been told his mother is seriously ill and has a kidney problem that requires a transplant.  It would in fact be a second transplant. 

19.  His parents are supportive of the defendant but clearly have been in the dark over his activities for the past 4 years.

20.  I have heard mitigation put forward and defence counsel has said all he can on behalf of the defendant.

21.  The authority for trafficking ketamine is The Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  In that authority, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion where between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is involved, a starting point of between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.  Here, mathematically speaking, the defendant would be facing a 5-year starting point. 

22.  I have taken into account the defendant’s plea, his previous clear record, his family background, his age.  But I have also taken into account that Charges 3 and 4 were committed whilst on bail for exactly the same offence.  This shows an utter, total disregard of the law and is an aggravating factor.

23.  Defendant, please stand up.  I have taken those factors I have just referred to into account, mitigation, the quantity of the drugs, the content of the report I called for.  For this quantity of dangerous drugs and considering the mitigation I have heard and considered relevant, I would take a global starting point of 4½ years. 

24.  After consideration for Charge 1, I would take a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment.  You are entitled to a discount of one-third for your plea.  For Charge 1, you will therefore be sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment.

25.  For Charges 3 and 4, I take a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment.  They were committed on the same day.  After a discount of one-third for your plea, for Charges 3 and 4, you are sentenced to 2 years and 8 months.  Charges 3 and 4 will be served concurrently.

26.  Taking into account the totality principle and the global starting point I referred to earlier, I will order 4 months of Charge 1 to run consecutively to Charge 3 and the balance concurrently. Therefore, the total sentence for all three charges will be 3 years’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.