HKSAR v. KOON PAK LUNG

DCCC704/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 704 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant enters a plea of guilty to the first charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, laid against him under section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134, the second charge of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug being left on file, marked “not to be proceeded with without the leave of the District Court or that of the Court of Appeal.”

Facts

2.  The facts to which the defendant agrees are as follows. 

3.  On the afternoon of 26 January 2011, a police officer saw the defendant looking around nervously at the podium of a public housing estate in Diamond Hill.  He intercepted the defendant for enquiry and found in his possession one transparent plastic bag containing six packets of what was later confirmed to be 48.6 grammes of a powder with 34.89 grammes of ketamine in it.

Conviction

4.  The court finds the defendant guilty of Charge 1.  The defendant has had one previous record prior to his current conviction, a record that relates to possession of dangerous drugs for which he was fined.

Mitigation

5.  In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration.

6.  The defendant said his boss had asked him to deliver the dangerous drugs to customers at the podium for a daily wage of $500, and admitted that the $1,297 in his possession were drug proceeds.

7.  The defendant is now 23 years old, single, and he lives with his aged grandparents and his fiancée.  He has been in a steady relationship with his fiancée for the past three years.  He works as a chef, making a respectable monthly income, and has been the sole breadwinner of his grandparents’ household.

8.  Two clemency letters were submitted to the court, showing the defendant has enjoyed popularity at work and that his employer considers him a good employee.

9.  The defendant understands that immediate imprisonment is inevitable.  He has committed the current offence because of financial gains, and he asks the court to adopt the lowest starting point as the circumstances of this offence permit.

Discussion

10.  Drug abuse poses a constant threat to the well-being of the society.  It ruins families, and breeds crimes, ad hoc and organised.  It wrecks a person’s life, sometimes beyond hope and repair.

11.  Even those who have successfully fought and overcome their addiction, their personalities and emotional make-up can be marred for life; employment opportunities for them are very often limited; and prospects of their reintegration into the society are grim. 

12.  What often awaits drug addicts and ex-drug addicts is extreme poverty over sustained periods and a life without self-esteem.  In terms of social costs and loss, the society suffers beyond measure.

13.  Drug traffickers are responsible for the spread of this vice habit.  The duty is upon the court to play its part in the fight against the drug-trade, to see to it that no one would be in any doubt that the society does not tolerate criminal conducts involving drug deals.

14.  The particular dangerous drug with which the court is concerned is ketamine, a psychotropic substance often used by drug abusers in conjunction with alcohol or other dangerous drugs.  It is well-known for its hallucinogenic effects.

15.  The abuse of ketamine causes impairment of the cognitive function, in worse cases, making the abusers liable to drown, to fall from height, and to cause car accidents.

16.  There is a correlation, medical experts have established, between ketamine and kidney dysfunctions and shrunken bladder effect.  Sociologists have opined that among places where ketamine was abused, Hong Kong appeared to be worse, and that ketamine hit our younger generation, particularly those under 21.  Academic research has revealed that ketamine caused amnesia and could be used to facilitate sexual assault by hampering the victim’s memory of what happened.

17.  The abuse of ketamine has in recent years become rampant in Hong Kong.

18.  In view of these factors, the Court of Appeal has laid down a sentence guideline for trafficking in ketamine (see SJ v Hii Siew Ching [2008] 3 HKC 323).  For the amount of ketamine the defendant trafficked in, the appropriate sentence range is one of four to six years’ imprisonment.  There is no special circumstance in the instant case to justify a departure from the guideline.

19.  The defendant has had one criminal record before his current conviction.  Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, none of his personal and family circumstances would warrant any further reduction in sentence.

Conclusion

20.  In the result, the appropriate starting point is one of five years’ imprisonment, which is reduced by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea to one of three years and

Order

21.  The defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and four months.