HKSAR v. LAU WANG KIT

DCCC 680/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 680 OF 2015

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

INTRODUCTION

1.  On 29 December 2015, the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, laid against him pursuant to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

FACTS

2.  On the evening of 2 June 2015, the defendant was observed to be acting furtively, holding a mobile phone in the left hand and a cigarette packet in the right hand, outside Room 918 Hing Tai House, Tai Hing Estate, Tuen Mun.  A police officer intercepted him and, in the cigarette packet, found two transparent plastic bags containing what was subsequently ascertained to be 24.7 grammes of a powder containing 21.4 grammes of ketamine.  The defendant was arrested; under caution, he said he was selling ketamine to make a living.  The street value of the ketamine was estimated to be some $3,000.

MITIGATION

3.  The defendant was born in July 1994.  (The offence took place just five weeks before his 21^st birthday.)  Educated to Form Five level and working as a warehouse attendant, he is single; and he lives with his parents and elder sister.  He has had a clear record prior to his current conviction.

4.  According to the background report, after he left school in April 2011, the defendant has had a number of short-term jobs including working as a warehouse staff, kitchen hand, and cook assistant.  His longest job has lasted for six months only.  He does not get along well with his colleagues at work but enjoys a good relationship with his parents and sister.  He mingles with dubious peers while playing basketball and cycling, and has spent late nights with them in bars or parks.  He has never tried any dangerous drugs, knowing their harmful effects on a person’s health. 

5.  The Probation Officer who compiled his background report recorded the defendant as saying that he did not mean to commit the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, and that he had just helped a friend to deliver a packet of cigarette without thinking it might have dangerous drugs inside.  Mr David IU appearing for the defence tells the court that that has occurred due to miscommunication between the defendant and the Probation Officer, and that the defendant admits knowledge of the presence of the ketamine inside the cigarette packet at the time of the offence.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

6.  The statutory maximum sentence for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug is imprisonment for life.  The Court of Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng[1] held that the appropriate sentence after trial for trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine should be four to six years’ imprisonment.  It is immediately clear from this stringent tariff that trafficking in ketamine is a serious offence.  Ketamine can cause serious problems to the abusers and to the society.  Expert evidence adduced before the Court of Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng[2] shows that abuse of ketamine can lead to falls from height, drowning, and traffic accidents; it has adverse effects on the abusers’ cardiovascular, respiratory and central nervous systems; it can induce psychological effects resembling schizophrenia, as well as impairment of episodic and semantic memory; and it can have long term effects in the form of memory deficit, “flashbacks”, attention dysfunction, decreased sociability, chronic mood elevation, and severe lower urinary tract symptoms.  Worse, not only has ketamine been shown, observes the Court of Appeal, to be a popular dangerous drug in Hong Kong, but its popularity tends also to manifest itself among drug abusers under 21. 

7.  The defendant is a first offender, enjoys strong family support, has never abused dangerous drugs of any description, and is relatively young.  He claims full criminal responsibilities for the present offence.  In the court’s view, the prospect of his successful rehabilitation seems promising.  Although the defendant was still 20 years old at the time of the offence, a Training Centre Order is – regrettably – unavailable as he has reached the age of 21 by the time of his conviction[3].

8.  In view of the quantity of narcotics concerned, the appropriate starting point is one of four years and three months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled to the usual one-third discount in sentence for his guilty plea and previous good character, thus resulting in a sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment. 

9.  The Probation Officer has commented that the defendant is an immature person.  It is unfortunate, in the court’s view, that under the legislative scheme currently in force in Hong Kong, the court is precluded from considering a Training Centre Order which might very well be a more appropriate form of sentence to address the defendant’s rehabilitation needs. 

10.  In all the circumstances, the court is prepared to allow the defendant, a fresh offender, an extra six months’ reduction in sentence on account of his missed opportunity of rehabilitation. 

CONCLUSION

11.  For the offence of which he stands convicted, the defendant is sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment.