HKSAR v. LAM KING HUNG

DCCC 633/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 633 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  In this case, the defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the offence being committed on 22 May this year, and the quantity being a total of 21.02 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The defendant has agreed the facts of the case, and I have convicted him accordingly.

3.  The facts show that the defendant was intercepted by police in Northpoint, and when he was searched, three transparent resealable plastic bags containing suspected drugs were found in his right front pocket.  He immediately admitted they were three packs of dangerous drugs for sale at $300 a pack.  Subsequently he repeated that in a cautioned interview where he said he was given three packs of ketamine to deliver to customers.  He was promised $300 as remuneration.

4.  The street value of the ketamine was estimated at $14,200.

5.  The defendant’s antecedents were admitted.  He is aged 18, he has no criminal record, and his parents are divorced.

6.  Because of the defendant’s age I obtained reports upon him, and included in those reports is a report from the Correctional Services Department as to the defendant’s suitability to be sentenced to a training centre.  The report deals in some detail with the defendant’s history, including the fact that whilst after arrest for this matter the defendant was arrested for another similar offence whilst he was on bail, as a result of which the defendant has been remanded since 26 July this year.

7.  The conclusion, however, of the report is that the defendant has weak self-control ability and a weak law‑abiding concept, and a period of disciplinary training would be beneficial; and accordingly, he is suitable for detention in a training centre.

8.  The background report obtained on the defendant showed that he had been brought up in a very good family.  However, on his resumption of secondary schooling, he turned loose and wayward and mixed with dubious peers during his period of studying at F2 level, he had later mingled with triad elements, and that the defendant had not learned a lesson from his original arrest and had committed a further drug trafficking offence whilst on bail.

9.  The defendant now states he had underestimated the seriousness of the legal consequences of drug trafficking and had paid a high price for his misdeeds.

10.  Actually, the sentencing in cases such as this is governed by guideline sentences, and the courts have said that those guideline sentences will apply to even young people.  The offence of drug trafficking is an area in which the courts take an approach to sentencing to enhance its deterrent effect, and are not necessarily so concerned with the rehabilitative effect on younger people of sentences that do not involve imprisonment.

11.  In this case I am dealing with a quantity of 21.02 grammes of the drug ketamine.  That puts the case in the sentencing range of 10 to 50 grammes of the drug, which is in the range of between 4 and 6 years’ imprisonment.

12.  Of consideration in this case is the fact the defendant is a young man - he is only 18; he has pleaded guilty; and he has a previous clear record.  In a normal case, this would place the defendant’s sentence at the lower point of the guideline, in the region of up to 5 years’ imprisonment.

13.  In this case, of course, I am aware there are matters which may lead to an enhancement of the reduction of sentence that can be given to the defendant by his plea of guilty.  When one takes into account the enhanced reduction the defendant could expect, together with any remission on that sentence, the time of incarceration would not necessarily greatly exceed the length of sentence that could be expected under a training centre order.

14.  In this case, having regard to all the facts that I am required to look at in sentencing, especially the defendant’s young age and previous clear record, and also taking into account the fact that although the defendant has been arrested for another offence, that matter is still not dealt with by these courts, so it would not be appropriate for me to take into account at this stage in my consideration of this sentence.

15.  Taking those matters into account, I consider that the defendant’s rehabilitation and punishment would be best served by him being sent to a training centre for this matter.

16.  The sentence I will impose for this matter is a sentence of training centre.

(T Casewell) District Judge