HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUN KIT

DCCC 1050/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1050 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 1 count of possessing 21.54 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The defendant was stopped and searched by the police inside the toilet of a commercial complex in Tseung Kwan O on the evening of 9 August 2009. He was found to have 2 packets of ketamine inside his trousers’ pocket. When cautioned, the defendant said he bought the ketamine for HK$1,800 from King Lam Estate of Tseung Kwan O. He intended to inhale the ketamine in the toilet.

3.  The drugs were subsequently examined by the government chemist who confirmed the 2 packets of mixture weighed 27.05 grammes which contained 21.45 grammes of ketamine.

4.  The defendant, aged 17 (born in September 1992), had one previous record of theft in 2005 and one of common assault in the same year. The defendant was born in Guangzhou of the mainland. At the age of 4 he came to join his father in Hong Kong. For about 3 years he was under the care of his aunt until his mother came to Hong Kong for family reunion when the defendant was 7 years old. The defendant’s mother moved out of the matrimonial home in 2005 when the defendant was about 13 years old. His parents finally divorced in 2008. Before this offence he was residing with his father in a public housing unit. His father lives on public social assistance.

5.  In his background report the defendant told the probation officer he started on ketamine when he was at his Form 2 studies. By Form 4 he tried cannabis and cocaine. He ceased schooling at the age of 15 in the year 2007 when he was repeatedly found smoking in school. Since leaving school the defendant had worked intermittently as a restaurant worker or a renovation worker on a casual basis. From March 2009 he has been unemployed.

6.  For the current offence, the defendant spent HK$1800 to purchase this bulk of ketamine for his consumption despite the fact he had no stable income. In his Drug Addiction Treatment Centre assessment report, he was described to be evasive and reserved in disclosing his past misdeeds and his drugs consumption dosage (last paragraph in page 3 of the report).

7.  At the time of the offence the defendant was a person who had no stable income. The drugs he had in his possession far exceeded the daily dosage of an average recreational user. The latent risk of substantial quantity of drugs left in the feeble hands of a drug dependent person cries out for the court’s attention. As discussed by Professor Lee (referred to by Mr. Justice Stuart-Moore, VP in Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 at para 92) the average recreational dosage of ketamine ranges from 10mg to 100mg. The 21.45 grammes of ketamine the defendant had would be sufficient to provide 214 doses to 2145 doses.

8.  In light of the quantity the defendant had in his possession, his weak sense of self-control, the latent risk of redistribution, I find a custodial term more appropriate for the defendant than a drug detoxification treatment programme with the DATC.

9.  The court usually considers a starting point of 12 –18 months in sentencing a possessor for possessing a substantial quantity of drugs. The starting point should be elevated with reference to the latent risk involved bearing in mind the quantity of drug the defendant had in his possession. [See Wan Sheung Sum [2000] 1 HKLRD 405 (23 Dec 99) ]

10.  I adopt the starting point of 18 months and enhanced it by 6 months with reference to the latent risk involved. Giving the defendant his credit for his plea of guilty, I accord him a 1/3 discount and sentence him to a term of 16 months imprisonment instead (2/3 of 2 years imprisonment).