A A
B DCCC 680/2015 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO 680 OF 2015
E E
-----------------
F HKSAR F
v
G G
LAU Wang-kit
H ----------------- H
I I
Before: Deputy District Judge Joseph To in Court
J Date: 20 January 2016 at 2:48 pm J
Present: Mr LUI Kit-ling, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR/Director of
K K
Public Prosecutions
L Mr IU Dah-hwa David, instructed by Messrs Eli KK Tsui & L
Co, assigned by Director of Legal Aid
M M
Offences: [1] Trafficking in a dangerous drug （販運危險藥物）
N N
O O
--------------------------------------
P P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q -------------------------------------- Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 1 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V
-2-
A A
B B
INTRODUCTION
C C
1. On 29 December 2015, the defendant pleaded guilty to one
D D
charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, laid against him pursuant to
E section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. E
F F
FACTS
G G
2. On the evening of 2 June 2015, the defendant was observed to
H H
be acting furtively, holding a mobile phone in the left hand and a cigarette
I packet in the right hand, outside Room 918 Hing Tai House, Tai Hing I
Estate, Tuen Mun. A police officer intercepted him and, in the cigarette
J J
packet, found two transparent plastic bags containing what was
K subsequently ascertained to be 24.7 grammes of a powder containing 21.4 K
grammes of ketamine. The defendant was arrested; under caution, he said
L L
he was selling ketamine to make a living. The street value of the ketamine
M was estimated to be some $3,000. M
N N
MITIGATION
O O
3. The defendant was born in July 1994. (The offence took
P P
st
place just five weeks before his 21 birthday.) Educated to Form Five
Q level and working as a warehouse attendant, he is single; and he lives with Q
his parents and elder sister. He has had a clear record prior to his current
R R
conviction.
S S
4. According to the background report, after he left school in
T T
April 2011, the defendant has had a number of short-term jobs including
U U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 2 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V
-3-
A A
B B
working as a warehouse staff, kitchen hand, and cook assistant. His
C longest job has lasted for six months only. He does not get along well with C
his colleagues at work but enjoys a good relationship with his parents and
D D
sister. He mingles with dubious peers while playing basketball and cycling,
E and has spent late nights with them in bars or parks. He has never tried any E
dangerous drugs, knowing their harmful effects on a person’s health.
F F
G 5. The Probation Officer who compiled his background report G
recorded the defendant as saying that he did not mean to commit the
H H
offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, and that he had just helped a
I friend to deliver a packet of cigarette without thinking it might have I
dangerous drugs inside. Mr David IU appearing for the defence tells the
J J
court that that has occurred due to miscommunication between the
K defendant and the Probation Officer, and that the defendant admits K
knowledge of the presence of the ketamine inside the cigarette packet at
L L
the time of the offence.
M M
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
N N
O 6. The statutory maximum sentence for the offence of O
trafficking in a dangerous drug is imprisonment for life. The Court of
P P
1
Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng held that the appropriate sentence after
Q trial for trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine should be four to six Q
years’ imprisonment. It is immediately clear from this stringent tariff that
R R
trafficking in ketamine is a serious offence. Ketamine can cause serious
S S
problems to the abusers and to the society. Expert evidence adduced
T T
1
SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1
U U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 3 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V
-4-
A A
B B
before the Court of Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng 2 shows that abuse of
C ketamine can lead to falls from height, drowning, and traffic accidents; it C
has adverse effects on the abusers’ cardiovascular, respiratory and central
D D
nervous systems; it can induce psychological effects resembling
E schizophrenia, as well as impairment of episodic and semantic memory; E
and it can have long term effects in the form of memory deficit,
F F
“flashbacks”, attention dysfunction, decreased sociability, chronic mood
G elevation, and severe lower urinary tract symptoms. Worse, not only has G
ketamine been shown, observes the Court of Appeal, to be a popular
H H
dangerous drug in Hong Kong, but its popularity tends also to manifest
I itself among drug abusers under 21. I
J J
7. The defendant is a first offender, enjoys strong family support,
K has never abused dangerous drugs of any description, and is relatively K
young. He claims full criminal responsibilities for the present offence. In
L L
the court’s view, the prospect of his successful rehabilitation seems
M promising. Although the defendant was still 20 years old at the time of the M
offence, a Training Centre Order is – regrettably – unavailable as he has
N N
reached the age of 21 by the time of his conviction3.
O O
8. In view of the quantity of narcotics concerned, the appropriate
P P
starting point is one of four years and three months’ imprisonment. The
Q defendant is entitled to the usual one-third discount in sentence for his Q
guilty plea and previous good character, thus resulting in a sentence of 34
R R
months’ imprisonment.
S S
T T
2
SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1
3
U See section 4(1) of the Training Centre Ordinance, Cap 280 U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 4 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V
-5-
A A
B B
9. The Probation Officer has commented that the defendant is an
C immature person. It is unfortunate, in the court’s view, that under the C
legislative scheme currently in force in Hong Kong, the court is precluded
D D
from considering a Training Centre Order which might very well be a more
E appropriate form of sentence to address the defendant’s rehabilitation E
needs.
F F
G 10. In all the circumstances, the court is prepared to allow the G
defendant, a fresh offender, an extra six months’ reduction in sentence on
H H
account of his missed opportunity of rehabilitation.
I I
CONCLUSION
J J
K 11. For the offence of which he stands convicted, the defendant is K
sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M M
N N
O ( Joseph To ) O
Deputy District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 5 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V
A A
B DCCC 680/2015 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO 680 OF 2015
E E
-----------------
F HKSAR F
v
G G
LAU Wang-kit
H ----------------- H
I I
Before: Deputy District Judge Joseph To in Court
J Date: 20 January 2016 at 2:48 pm J
Present: Mr LUI Kit-ling, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR/Director of
K K
Public Prosecutions
L Mr IU Dah-hwa David, instructed by Messrs Eli KK Tsui & L
Co, assigned by Director of Legal Aid
M M
Offences: [1] Trafficking in a dangerous drug （販運危險藥物）
N N
O O
--------------------------------------
P P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q -------------------------------------- Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 1 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V
-2-
A A
B B
INTRODUCTION
C C
1. On 29 December 2015, the defendant pleaded guilty to one
D D
charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, laid against him pursuant to
E section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. E
F F
FACTS
G G
2. On the evening of 2 June 2015, the defendant was observed to
H H
be acting furtively, holding a mobile phone in the left hand and a cigarette
I packet in the right hand, outside Room 918 Hing Tai House, Tai Hing I
Estate, Tuen Mun. A police officer intercepted him and, in the cigarette
J J
packet, found two transparent plastic bags containing what was
K subsequently ascertained to be 24.7 grammes of a powder containing 21.4 K
grammes of ketamine. The defendant was arrested; under caution, he said
L L
he was selling ketamine to make a living. The street value of the ketamine
M was estimated to be some $3,000. M
N N
MITIGATION
O O
3. The defendant was born in July 1994. (The offence took
P P
st
place just five weeks before his 21 birthday.) Educated to Form Five
Q level and working as a warehouse attendant, he is single; and he lives with Q
his parents and elder sister. He has had a clear record prior to his current
R R
conviction.
S S
4. According to the background report, after he left school in
T T
April 2011, the defendant has had a number of short-term jobs including
U U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 2 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V
-3-
A A
B B
working as a warehouse staff, kitchen hand, and cook assistant. His
C longest job has lasted for six months only. He does not get along well with C
his colleagues at work but enjoys a good relationship with his parents and
D D
sister. He mingles with dubious peers while playing basketball and cycling,
E and has spent late nights with them in bars or parks. He has never tried any E
dangerous drugs, knowing their harmful effects on a person’s health.
F F
G 5. The Probation Officer who compiled his background report G
recorded the defendant as saying that he did not mean to commit the
H H
offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, and that he had just helped a
I friend to deliver a packet of cigarette without thinking it might have I
dangerous drugs inside. Mr David IU appearing for the defence tells the
J J
court that that has occurred due to miscommunication between the
K defendant and the Probation Officer, and that the defendant admits K
knowledge of the presence of the ketamine inside the cigarette packet at
L L
the time of the offence.
M M
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
N N
O 6. The statutory maximum sentence for the offence of O
trafficking in a dangerous drug is imprisonment for life. The Court of
P P
1
Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng held that the appropriate sentence after
Q trial for trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine should be four to six Q
years’ imprisonment. It is immediately clear from this stringent tariff that
R R
trafficking in ketamine is a serious offence. Ketamine can cause serious
S S
problems to the abusers and to the society. Expert evidence adduced
T T
1
SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1
U U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 3 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V
-4-
A A
B B
before the Court of Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng 2 shows that abuse of
C ketamine can lead to falls from height, drowning, and traffic accidents; it C
has adverse effects on the abusers’ cardiovascular, respiratory and central
D D
nervous systems; it can induce psychological effects resembling
E schizophrenia, as well as impairment of episodic and semantic memory; E
and it can have long term effects in the form of memory deficit,
F F
“flashbacks”, attention dysfunction, decreased sociability, chronic mood
G elevation, and severe lower urinary tract symptoms. Worse, not only has G
ketamine been shown, observes the Court of Appeal, to be a popular
H H
dangerous drug in Hong Kong, but its popularity tends also to manifest
I itself among drug abusers under 21. I
J J
7. The defendant is a first offender, enjoys strong family support,
K has never abused dangerous drugs of any description, and is relatively K
young. He claims full criminal responsibilities for the present offence. In
L L
the court’s view, the prospect of his successful rehabilitation seems
M promising. Although the defendant was still 20 years old at the time of the M
offence, a Training Centre Order is – regrettably – unavailable as he has
N N
reached the age of 21 by the time of his conviction3.
O O
8. In view of the quantity of narcotics concerned, the appropriate
P P
starting point is one of four years and three months’ imprisonment. The
Q defendant is entitled to the usual one-third discount in sentence for his Q
guilty plea and previous good character, thus resulting in a sentence of 34
R R
months’ imprisonment.
S S
T T
2
SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1
3
U See section 4(1) of the Training Centre Ordinance, Cap 280 U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 4 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V
-5-
A A
B B
9. The Probation Officer has commented that the defendant is an
C immature person. It is unfortunate, in the court’s view, that under the C
legislative scheme currently in force in Hong Kong, the court is precluded
D D
from considering a Training Centre Order which might very well be a more
E appropriate form of sentence to address the defendant’s rehabilitation E
needs.
F F
G 10. In all the circumstances, the court is prepared to allow the G
defendant, a fresh offender, an extra six months’ reduction in sentence on
H H
account of his missed opportunity of rehabilitation.
I I
CONCLUSION
J J
K 11. For the offence of which he stands convicted, the defendant is K
sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment.
L L
M M
N N
O ( Joseph To ) O
Deputy District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT20/20.1.2016/ 5 DCCC 680/2015/Sentence
V V