HKSAR v. HON CHEUK LAM

DCCC491/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 491 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He has accepted the facts of the case and I have convicted him of that offence. The offence was committed in 2 March this year in Mongkok and involved the trafficking in some 52 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The facts accepted by the defendant are simply stated.  There was a team of police officers conducting an anti-narcotics operation in Nathan Road, Mongkok.  They saw the defendant on the 1st Floor of a place called One Grand Tower in Nathan Road and intercepted him for inquiry and a body search.  On that search some six plastic bags containing the ketamine were found between the defendant’s trousers and his front waist.  The defendant was cautioned and he said that all the K Chai belonged to him and he helped others to deliver it.

3.  The drug was eventually examined and found to be a total of 80.17 grammes of a powder which contained 52.66 grams of ketamine. I was given a figure of value of just over $9,000 for the total ketamine seized.  

4.  The defendant is a young man.  He is 20 years old.  His antecedence said he had worked as a garage worker, a lorry attendant and a construction site worker.  He had been unemployed since February 2011. The defendant had some previous criminal history.  He had been placed on probation in 2003 and then for breach of that probation order in 2004 had been sent to a rehabilitation centre.  The defendant has convictions for possession of drugs in 2008 and 2009 for which he was eventually placed on probation for 18 months. 

5.  The defendant has put forward some mitigation. Counsel reminded me the defendant was 20 at the time of the offence, which would presumably, make him 21 now.  The defendant had apparently opened one of the packets of drugs, prior to his arrest, and consumed some drug.  The defendant would consume some of the drugs himself being a user of drugs as is apparent from his criminal record.  This is a factor, although not a significant factor.  The defendant, prior to becoming unemployed had been a warehouse worker.  He earned about $12,000 a month. 

6.  Significant factors in sentencing might be the defendant’s youth.  He is still a very young man.  Prior to his involvement in this activity he was involved in some minor criminal offences.  The only sentence that can be imposed in respect of trafficking in a drug of this quantity is an immediate sentence of imprisonment.  There are clear guidelines as to the range of sentences to be imposed in respect of quantities of drugs of this nature.

7.  The defendant was trafficking in just over 50 grammes of ketamine which puts him in the range of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. Obviously the quantity of the drug the defendant was trafficking in would put him at the bottom of that range.  I have to factor in also the defendant’s youth, his young age, and also the fact that he may well have used part of the drug for his own consumption. 

8.  I have decided that I will take a starting point for sentence at 66 months’ imprisonment.  He is entitled to a full one-third discount which results in a sentence of 44 months’ imprisonment.