HKSAR v. CHENG KAI YEUNG

DCCC349/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 349 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Mr Cheng Kai-yeung, pleads guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.  The particulars of offence are that the defendant on 28 January 2010 near a footbridge towards Pai Tau Village outside Shatin MTR Station, Shatin, New Territories in Hong Kong unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 13.61 grammes of a powder containing 10.80 grammes of ketamine.

Facts Admitted

3.  On 28 January 2010 at about 1835 hours, police officers stopped and searched the defendant near a footbridge at Pai Tau Village outside Shatin MTR Station and found the dangerous drug in question, i.e. 13.61 grammes of a powder containing 10.80 grammes of ketamine inside the defendant's right trousers pocket.  On being arrested and cautioned for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant stated, “Ah sir, this ‘K' is not for my consumption, I brought it here to sell to someone else.  I only earn $300 out of it”.

4.  In interviews held subsequently the defendant admitted inter alia that he had purchased the ketamine in Central for $2,000 on 25 January 2010 which was in three packets.  He had already sold two packets and was bringing a packet for sale to a person named Ah Yat for $1,000 at the time of his arrest.  He had sold the dangerous drug to cover his living expenses and to pay off debts.

Criminal Record

5.  The defendant has a clear criminal record.

Training Centre Report

6.  The court obtains a Training Centre suitability report of the defendant before sentencing. According to the report, defendant was brought up in a working class family and his parents divorced in 2009.  He completed Form 5 education and remained idle for sometime before being employed as an internet broadband service salesman between October 2008 and December 2009, earning about $8,000 to $10,000 a month.  He became jobless afterwards and engaged in drug peddling activities resulting in being arrested for the present offence.  The defendant was tempted to take ketamine in October 2009 and he then became an occasional ketamine consumer.  He also consumed midazolam but stopped all dangerous drug consumption in June 2010.

7.  The defendant borrowed $30,000 from various finance institutions on behalf of his employer in April 2009 but the employer did not repay all the money to him.  In order to earn money to repay the debts and to cover his living expenses he engaged in drug peddling activities in January 2010 under the influence of undesirable peers.  The Correctional Service Department officer compiling the report is of the view that the defendant is suitable for admission to the Training Centre.

Mitigation

8.  The solicitor for the defendant says in mitigation that the defendant had worked in a number of companies after completing Form 5 education.  When he worked as a sales representative he borrowed $30,000 from various finance companies on behalf of his head manager but the head manager failed to repay the loans.  In January 2010 the grandmother of the defendant passed away and funeral expenses were incurred.  The defendant committed the present offence under financial pressure.  The solicitor stresses that the defendant has a clear record and is of young age and had reasons to commit the offence.  He asks the court to treat the defendant leniently so that he can be released early to support his family.  The solicitor adds that the defendant agreed to the contents of the Training Centre suitability report and asks the court to send the defendant to Training Centre.

Sentence

9.  Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious and socially repugnant offence because it makes dangerous drugs more readily available to the general public thus resulting in more people being addicted to the illicit substances. This does not only ruin the drug addicts and their families but also causes tremendous harm to society as a whole.  The Court of Appeal has set down clear sentencing guidelines for this offence.  According to these guidelines the normal sentence for trafficking in 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is 4 to 6 years' imprisonment.  The quantity of ketamine in the present case is 10.80 grammes and the sentence should be one of about 4 years' imprisonment.

10.  The defendant is only 19 years old.  Due to his young age and clear record the court is of the view that the sentence to be imposed should not only be punitive in nature but should also help the defendant to rehabilitate.  In this connection sending the defendant to imprisonment is not the best option because it lacks the rehabilitation element.  The court considers that a period of disciplinary training in a closed setting with a period of statutory supervision is most beneficial to the defendant and society.  The court therefore sentences the defendant to Training Centre.