HKSAR v. LAW HUNG HING

 DCCC477/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 477 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 26.7 grammes of a powder containing 18.39 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The facts show that on the evening of 6 March this year the defendant was stopped and searched. Two re-sealable plastic bags were found in the left front pocket of the defendant’s pants. The defendant admitted that these two packets were ketamine and under caution admitted that he would sell part of the ketamine and keep some for his own consumption.

3.  Subsequently, the defendant was interviewed under caution and he claimed that he had bought the ketamine from a person with a common name of “Ah Sing” for $1,300 and he was intending to sell half and keep half for his own consumption. The drugs were examined and certified to be ketamine.

4.  I note that the defendant lives on the 11th Floor of the building where he was arrested and the defendant was arrested on the staircase of the 9th Floor of Ting Long House.

5.  In mitigation, Mr Hung says that the defendant is aged 24 and earns about $11,000 per month. Initially, he claimed that he was self-employed but upon further questioning of that point through Mr Hung, he says that he is also employed by a meat stall owner and he produced a letter from the meat stall owner, a Mr Chong, who certifies that he is his employee and he said has good working conduct.

6.  His mother is a construction site worker and apparently he earns about $11,000 a month and gives half of that - $5,000 - to his mother for the family. I have informed Mr Hung that I am not prepared to accept that the defendant was intending to keep half of the drugs that was found on him for his own consumption and that, if he wanted to, he could ask for a Newton hearing. Mr Hung said he had taken instructions from the defendant and the defendant declined to call any evidence on this point.

7.  The plea in mitigation is really that the defendant is remorseful and this is his first offence. He has a clear record and also in his favour is that he admitted to the police that the drugs were ketamine and he was intending sell part of them, at least.

8.  I am told he is the sole breadwinner of the family but then I am also told that his mother is a construction site worker, so obviously he is not the sole breadwinner of the family.

9.  In any event, drug trafficking is a very serious crime, especially trafficking in ketamine because ketamine is a very popular drug for the young and drug dealers prey on the young in discotheques and bars and even schoolchildren to get them hooked on this drug. So the Court of Appeal has recently introduced guidelines for sentencing in ketamine in the case of Hii Siew Cheng, where they said that for trafficking in between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine sentence should be in the region of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

10.  In this case, the defendant has admitted that he is a drug addict but I do not believe that he was intending to keep half of that 18 grammes for his own consumption. He may take some for his own consumption, so I will consider that therefore in all the circumstances an appropriate sentence would be of 4 years' imprisonment as a starting point.

11.  Because of the defendant’s plea, it is reduced to 32 months' imprisonment, so the defendant goes to prison for 32 months.