HKSAR v. LUI CHI HO

DCCC 345/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 345 OF 2015

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drug, which being 59.8 grammes of a powder containing 43.9 grammes of ketamine.

Summary of facts

2.  The facts in support of the defendant’s plea can be briefly stated as follows: On 14 March 2015, the defendant, whilst on board a taxi near Sau Mau Ping Estate, aroused police attention during a spot check.  Police officer invited him to come down for further inquiry near Lamppost No. AB 5368 which was opposite to Sau Ching House, Sau Mau Ping Estate.  Upon a body search, 45 packets of ketamine (which was later confirmed to be 59.8 grammes of a powder containing 43.9 grammes of ketamine) were found from the left inner pocket of the defendant’s jacket.  On the spot, the defendant stated under caution that those were for his own consumption. Inside the police station, he repeated the same admissions whilst being video-interviewed, adding that he had been an addict since he was 17 years old, and the drugs seized were bought from Ah Hung in Shun Lee Estate at the price of HK$2,600.

3.  The street value of the drugs involved was around HK$7,176 at the time.

Mitigation

4.  In mitigation, defence counsel urges the court to be as lenient as possible towards the defendant, who came from a big working class family, which has difficulty to have its ends met.  Prior to the present conviction the defendant worked as transportation worker and he contributed HK$4,000 monthly towards family expenses.  He foolishly thought that delivering drugs would give him quick money, and he now realises that he is wrong.  Defence counsel Mr Percy added that the defendant bought the drugs which would be collected by his friend, who would then share some with him.

5.  Mr Percy asks the court to refrain from taking the topmost end within the band of 4 to 6 years, which is for trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine: See SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  The reason is that the defendant is still relatively young and he has no drug-related conviction.  As to the breach of suspended sentence imposed for the last item in the defendant’s criminal record, Mr Percy fairly concedes that it is very much in the court’s hands as to activation.  That item is a theft conviction where the defendant was sentenced to a fine of HK$500 and a term of 1 month suspended for 2 years.

Sentence

6.  I have carefully considered the facts of the case and everything that could possibly be said on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Percy. I have also read the letter handwritten by the defendant in which he says he is truly remorseful for what he has done, and would very much hope to turn a new leaf after release from prison.

7.  In sentencing drug trafficking cases the court does not have much discretion.  There is clear guideline from the higher courts.  Having considered all the circumstances, I am prepared to take a starting point of 66 months (5.5 years).  The defendant pleads guilty to the charge so he is entitled to full one-third discount.  There is however no other mitigating factor justifying further reduction.  The term after reduction would be 44 months.

8.  As to the suspended term of 1 month, given its different nature from the current offence, I would not activate it this time. The 1 month term adds little or nothing to the present sentence in any event.

9.  I hereby impose a term of 44 months imprisonment.