HKSAR v. LAM CHU FUNG, ELLIOT

DCCC516/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 516 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

2.  On 23 February this year, defendant was arrested at Shatin MTR and in possession of 30.99 grammes of a powder containing 25.13 grammes of ketamine.  He admitted to officers upon arrest that he was acting as a courier delivering this quantity of drugs.  This will amount to trafficking in dangerous drugs.

3.  The facts of this case are very straightforward.  The defendant met a drug dealer and offered for a profit or for a financial reward to deliver or sell drugs on his behalf.  This person had the defendant’s telephone mobile number.  The day before the defendant was arrested, he received a call and was told to deliver drugs for this male. 

4.  On 23 February, in that afternoon, he met this male and took delivery of this quantity of drugs.  For a reward of $400, he was to deliver this to an unknown male at Shatin MTR Station.  The defendant was arrested at this MTR station when he attracted the attention of police officers on an anti-dangerous drug patrol.  And as I have said, he made a full admission upon arrest.

5.  This defendant is only 18 years old and previously had a clear record.  He readily admits that he started to abuse ketamine himself when he was only 17 and at school, which will explain how he became acquainted with drug dealers.  These dealers will prey on young men and women like the defendant who will courier or deliver drugs for a small fee. Usually, the small fee is needed to fuel their own drug habits.  It is a very vicious circle.

6.  Having seen the statement provided to me made by the defendant in May this year, providing possible useful information to the police, and although nothing transpired, it does show willing to reform and perhaps an intention to assist.

7.  The defendant’s own mitigation letter shows remorse.  It is refreshing to read a mitigation letter that acknowledges how sorry he is to his parents, he is sorry that he has disappointed them.  It also acknowledges a clear realisation of the harm ketamine does to one’s body.  The defendant tells the court that he is sorry that he was involved in distributing such a drug in a society that is obviously so harmful.  The harm caused by abuse of ketamine is becoming clearer and clearer.  Abusers are suffering from kidney damage, urinary tract problems and an inability to function properly.  Courts have seen defendants in their early 20s having to wear adult nappies because of kidney damage, and because the damage they have done to themselves is irreparable, their only hope is a transplant.  And I hope the defendant’s health has not suffered to this extent.

8.  I have also seen letters of mitigation from the defendant’s mother and Dr Pullinger of the St Stephen’s Society. Defendant’s parents are very supportive and have not given up hope, and the defendant should know that in her letter, his mother and father do believe the defendant when he says he is willing and determined to mend his ways.  I am well aware of the good work that St Stephen’s Society does for drug addicts and it is often an answer to a drug addict’s problems.  For Dr Pullinger to write a letter on the defendant’s behalf must only mean that she too is impressed by the defendant’s remorse.  That is encouraging because it demonstrates the defendant’s promise to turn over a new leaf is not just a hollow promise, hoping to attract leniency.  If it was a hollow promise, I am sure she would not pen a letter on the defendant’s behalf.  So I hope he does not let her down as well as his parents.

9.  I totally understand his mother’s anguish and I totally understand her requesting this court to consider St Stephen’s programme as an appropriate punishment.  However, I cannot agree that this would be an appropriate course of action.  This offence is too serious, too prevalent and must be seen to be deterred.  The drug trade is flourishing and must be dealt with severely, and I do take into account that the defendant is only 18, but youth is not a mitigating factor that will attract a more lenient approach where trafficking drugs is concerned, especially where this quantity is concerned.

10.  Mr Chan for the defendant has set out all the best mitigation he can on the defendant’s behalf.  Ultimately, I do find a term of imprisonment appropriate.  I will take into account the defendant’s plea, young age, clear record, full co‑operation with the police and good mitigation.  I will also take into account the facts of the case and the quantity involved. 

11.  Where ketamine is concerned, there is a tariff guideline set down by the Court of Appeal in Secretary of Justice v Hii Siew Cheng CAAR7 of 2006.  Where trafficking between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is established, a term of imprisonment between 4 and 6 years has been set down as appropriate.

12.  Defendant, please stand up.  To reflect your good mitigation, full co-operation and clear record and young age, I will take a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment, and I will because of your plea discount the starting point by 16 months.  For this offence, you are sentenced to 2 years and 8 months.  Do you understand the sentence?