HKSAR v. LEE SIN YU

DCCC611/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 611 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking dangerous drugs. The quantity involved here is 26.81 grammes of powder containing 21.34 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The facts of the case are very straightforward. The police stopped and searched the defendant and found this amount of ketamine in two plastic bags. Under caution she admitted that she was acting as a drug mule delivering the drugs.

3.  The defendant, at the time of the offence, was 17 years old. Now, she has recently turned 18. The defendant has a clear record. On the last occasion, I heard full mitigation from Miss Chow. I also received a letter of support in mitigation from her employer, who she has been working for, for a good period of time.

4.  The defendant’s father was also in court and he is very supportive. Because of the defendant’s age on the last occasion, I adjourned for a training centre and rehabilitation centre suitability report. I did make it clear on the last occasion that I was not of the view that the rehabilitation centre was a suitable punishment for an offence of this gravity.

5.  I will not repeat the details of the report. It goes through the defendant’s background. Clearly the defendant has not had much control in her life from a very young age. She has had a very loose lifestyle. She, by her own admission, has been dabbling in drugs since she was about 12 years old. The report clearly says that she has admitted selling drugs to make money to buy drugs for her own drug habit. She disputes that and calls it instead sharing drugs with her friends. Sharing is as serious. She is, in effect, distributing it to other youths. It is conduct like this that exacerbates the drug problem amongst teenagers.

6.  From the details of the report of the defendant’s lifestyle, clearly she is in need of rehabilitation. I have considered whether this is a suitable case for a training centre or whether I should consider a term of imprisonment. According to guidelines where ketamine is concerned, the defendant would be looking, with this quantity of drugs, at a period of 4 to 4½ years’ imprisonment.

7.  The defendant, being so young, the court should consider if there are any other alternatives suitable and I quote from section 4.1 of the Training Centres Ordinance, Cap. 280.

“Where the court is satisfied that it is in the interest of the community, and that having regard to his character and previous conduct and to the circumstances of the offence, it is expedient for his reformation and for the prevention of crime, that he should undergo a period of training in a training centre, the court may, in lieu of any other sentence, pass a sentence of detention in a training centre.”

8.  In view of the defendant’s age and the facts of this case, and background, I am minded to take this course of action. I note that a rehabilitation centre has been deemed suitable. However, in my view, it would not reflect the seriousness of this offence. It has been impressed upon me that the defendant has been in custody for six months already.

9.  The defendant has been in custody; the defendant was not granted bail because of the gravity of this offence. It is not, in a case of this nature, a matter that will greatly affect the sentence I impose. I see, from the report, the defendant is mentally and physically fit for a training centre. I will consider a training centre over a term of imprisonment.

10.  For this offence the defendant is sentenced to a training centre order.