HKSAR v. LEE HUNG KIN

HCCC 78/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 78 OF 2015

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

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

---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant was charged with two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He pleaded guilty to Count 1 and not guilty to Count 2. Having convicted the defendant of Count 1, I acceded to the application by the prosecution to leave Count 2 on the court file marked “Not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court”.

In sentencing on Count 1, I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case are simple. The defendant entered a hotel room and stayed there for about half an hour. When he left the room, he was intercepted by the police. In the bag carried by the defendant there were two plastic bags both containing ketamine. The total quantity was 0.49 kilogrammes of a powder containing 0.32 kilogrammes of ketamine.

The defendant said, under caution, that upon instruction, he got the ketamine in the hotel room and intended to bring it to someone for a reward of $1,000 which he had not yet received.

I was told that the defendant is 46 years of age. He has only received education up to primary 4 and had worked in a hardware company and a factory. He is married and has two infant sons.

The defendant is not a first-time offender. He had been convicted of two offences of theft, two offences of robbery, four burglary-related offences and one carrying arms or imitation firearm with the intent to commit an arrestable offence. All these were committed before 1993. Then he had been convicted only once in 2001 for an offence of possession of a dangerous drug. I was told that the drug was cannabis. For this offence, he was sentenced to a suspended sentence. Since then he has been able to keep out of trouble. It is sad to see the defendant commit an offence again, and for a serious one.

Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Boyton, urges me to take into account the guilty plea of the defendant and said the defendant is now full of remorse and is prepared to turn over a new leaf. The defendant has the support of the family and the core members are in court today to show support.

Mr Boyton also told me that the defendant had tried to assist the police by providing information of the person who instructed him to act in this case. That assistance, however, did not bear fruitful results.

The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was ketamine. The total narcotic content was 0.32 kilogrammes. The Court of Appeal held in the case SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 that a sentence of 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment should be considered for trafficking in ketamine if the narcotic content is 300 to 600 grammes.

In all the circumstances, I do not find there are good grounds to depart from the tariff. In my judgment, a starting point of 9 years is appropriate and sufficient for this charge.

The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty plea. In all the circumstances, bearing in mind what defence counsel told me and having regard to authorities in relation to unfruitful assistance to the authorities, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to in this case.

Defendant, please stand up.

By reason of the matters aforesaid, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 6 years for Count 1.