HKSAR v. SHAR CHI CHEONG

 DCCC1145/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1145 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 45.48 grammes of a powder containing 16.58 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The facts are not unusual at all. In the early hours of the morning, the police at a traffic roadblock had stopped the car in which the defendant was driving, and when the defendant was requested to alight from the car for a search, the drugs were found inside his trousers, and they were packaged in two separate transparent bags. One transparent bag had 6.98 grammes of a powder containing 2.31 grammes of ketamine, and the other transparent bag had three smaller transparent resealable bags inside containing white powder and to a total of 38.50 grammes of a powder containing 14.27 grammes of ketamine.

3.  So the defendant was charged with the present offence and he was arrested, and under caution, the defendant admitted that he had bought these drugs and then it had nothing to do with the male passenger in his car.

4.  The defendant is aged 24 and has three previous convictions, all to do with drugs. He has one of trafficking in 2008 February when he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. The other two previous convictions were for possession of dangerous drugs, for which he was fined. So the defendant is certainly not a newcomer to drug offences.

5.  The defendant, I am told, is an insurance agent and has a good job. He earns about $20,000 a month. He has a good family; he has a family that cares about him and to the extent that the family blame themselves for his commission of the offence.

6.  I do not agree. The family do not bear any responsibility at all for the defendant. The defendant is aged 24. He has been in trouble before. He knows the consequences of drug trafficking. He has been in prison before. So the family do not have to blame themselves. In fact, the family should be proud of themselves because despite all this, they still come to court today to support the defendant. The defendant has no one to blame but himself.

7.  Drug trafficking is a very serious offence, as the defendant well knows, because of the evil that it does to society as a whole, and the drug ketamine is gaining more and more popularity because young people are drawn to this drug. It is becoming easily available. So the court has recently pronounced guidelines to deal with trafficking in ketamine, and that is, as Mr Ng correctly pointed out, in the case of Hii Siew Cheng HCCC121/2005. New guidelines have been made for ketamine, and the court has pronounced that for trafficking in between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine, a sentence of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment is recommended.

8.  The defendant’s only mitigation as far as I can see is that he has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity which has saved the court’s time. I am informed that the court was not informed that today was to be a short matter because this was set down for trial, but I accept from Mr Ng that it was an oversight on the part of their solicitors. So I will not say any more about that.

9.  But in any event, it is a very serious offence and I consider that with the background of this offence and the defendant’s background that a proper starting point would be 4 and a half years’ imprisonment. Taking into account his plea, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.