HKSAR v. LEE CHUN HUNG

DCCC277/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 277 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant Lee Chun-hung, aged 18 years, pleaded guilty before me to a single charge of possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.  The particulars of offence avers that the defendant on 30th day of October 2008, at Chung Ying Street police post, Sha Tau Kok, New Territories, in Hong Kong, had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely, 15.59 grammes of a powder containing 8.21 grammes of ketamine.

3.  The facts of the case are simple and straightforward.  The defendant resided at Sha Tau Kok Closed Area, which required a closed area permit to enter into and he was allowed to travel between the mainland and Hong Kong via Chung Ying Street, using a permit issued by the mainland authority.  On the date in question, the defendant was apprehended by a police officer who was on duty at the police post at Chung Ying Street.  The policeman had spotted the defendant walking furtively and entering Hong Kong from Shenzhen Sha Tou Jiao via the police post.  After the defendant was intercepted, he was searched and the policeman found on his person two transparent plastic bags of suspected ketamine inside a shoulder bag carried by him.

4.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he knew that these were ketamine, which he had purchased for $800 in the mainland on 29 October 2008 for his own consumption.  Subsequent examination by the Government Chemist confirmed the two bags of suspected ketamine to be ketamine of the quality as particularly described in the charge.

5.  The defendant has one previous conviction in 2008, of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen for which he was placed on probation for 12 months.

6.  After listening to the mitigation, I adjourned the sentence and obtained a Detention Centre, Rehabilitation Centre, as well as a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Suitability report.  Today the report was before me.  According to the report, as the medical officer has confirmed that the defendant is a drug-dependant it is considered that the defendant is not suitable for detention in a Detention Centre or a Rehabilitation Centre; rather, the defendant was considered to be suitable for admission to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

7.  According to the report, the defendant was brought up in a working class family and was the elder of two siblings.  Apparently, he was under the excessive protection of his parents and he became rebellious and wilful.  His academic performance deteriorated after he was promoted to the secondary school in 2003 and he eventually dropped out of the school in 2005.

8.  In late 2005, he was arranged to study in England and he stayed there for a brief period.  After he failed to find a school placement there, he returned to Hong Kong and commenced working.  However, he failed to maintain his study and stable job employment and he acquainted with some dubious colleagues and also re-associated with some of his ex-schoolmates.  Out of curiosity, he sniffed ketamine in July 2007.  He continued his loose life-pattern, frequenting discos and bars on the mainland.

9.  In March 2008, after he was put on probation for his unlawful sexual intercourse offence for 12 months, however, according to the probation officers his performance during the probation period was just described as “fair” and that is why he continued his loose lifestyle and drug taking behaviour, which ended up in his present conviction.

10.  In this case, the prosecution initially charged the defendant with a trafficking offence.  That is because the definition of trafficking includes importations and in this case the defendant was carrying those ketamine across the border.

11.  According to the new sentencing guidelines for trafficking as laid down by the Court of Appeal in relation to ketamine, for the present quantity the defendant was looking at a period of 3 years’ imprisonment if he is an adult.  Therefore, the defendant could consider himself to be lucky when the prosecution have finally decided to accept a lesser charge of possession of a dangerous drug.  Apparently, this is due to the defendant’s residential status in the Sha Tau Kok Closed Area and the acceptance of his plea that all the drug in question was for his own consumption.

12.  Today, through his lawyer, the defendant has expressed deep remorse and vowed to get over it and disassociate with all his undesirable peers in the future.  The parents are very supportive and they are here in the court supporting the defendant.

13.  According to the report, in view of the defendant’s drug-taking behaviour a period of compulsory drug-treatment programme coupled with statutory supervision will be beneficial for the rehabilitation of the defendant.  As the defendant is a drug-dependant he is therefore considered unsuitable for detention in a Detention Centre or a Rehabilitation Centre.  He is, however, considered suitable for admission to a Drug Admission Treatment Centre.  Through his counsel, the defendant also has expressed his wish to go to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre for treatment.

14.  After considering all the matters in the round, I am of the view that the recommendations that the defendant be sent to the DATC is a recommendation that I should follow and so this is exactly the order that I shall pass on the defendant.