HKSAR v. LAW TAT SHING

DCCC 383/2023

[2023] HKDC 1856

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 383 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  In this case the defendant, Law Tat Shing, faced one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He is convicted upon his plea and admission of the facts.

2.  The facts revealed that in the evening on 26 August 2022, the defendant was intercepted at the entrance of a building. On his person there were two large bags containing 261.4 grammes of ketamine.

3.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he had been asked to bring in the dangerous drugs for a fee of $2,000. The defendant himself was not a drug user.

4.  The market price of the ketamine seized was in the neighbourhood of $193,103.

5.  Although the defendant contended that he did not know they were ketamine, he did know they were drugs; therefore his ignorance its type was not a defence or a mitigating factor.

6.  Offences of this kind has been repeatedly considered by the Court of Appeal. Both the prosecution and the defence have all agreed that according to the case of Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the present quantity falls within the 50 to 300 grammes bracket and warrants a sentence of 6 to 9 years. Therefore, mathematically, he should be sentenced to 8 years and 6 months.

7.  Before adopting a proper starting point, the court takes into consideration of the maximum jurisdiction in the District Court is 7 years. Although as had been pointed out by the prosecution, this court is entitled to adopt a higher starting point of over 7 years, it will still be acting within its jurisdiction if the ultimate sentence order does not exceed 7 years. However in my view, since the prosecution has decided to bring this matter in the District Court, one of the factors to have been considered must be its maximum jurisdiction, especially in a case where the quantity of imprisonment has been clearly stated in the Court of Appeal decisions. In all fairness, I believe that it is proper to adopt 7 years as the starting point.

Mitigation

8.  The Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that the purpose of such sentencing order is to deter others committing offences of the same kind. So the personal circumstances of the accused usually carried little weight.

9.  According to the antecedents statement and the mitigation put forward by the defendant’s counsel, the court learned that the defendant was aged 21, he had a clear record. He is married with two children. His wife is a full time housewife and him the sole provider of the family.

10.  Although the defendant was young at the time the offence was committed, it has been pointed out by the Court of Appeal that youth, except in the case of extreme youth, is not a valid mitigating factor in this kind of offence.

11.  In passing sentence, the only regret I had was that my sentence order would necessarily put his wife and two young children in dire financial situation. However, the defendant should have their well-being in mind before he committed the present offence. He can only blame himself.

12.  In the present case, the only valid mitigating factor is the fact that he pleaded guilty. In accordance with the Court of Appeal guidelines and directions, I would therefore reduce his sentence from 84 months to 56 months.

13.  Having considered the defendant’s personal circumstances, I do not see any other reason for me to exercise my discretion of leniency.