HKSAR v. CHAN CHEUK NAM

DCCC 531/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 531 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant was charged with one count of Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, he was convicted accordingly. In view of the age and background of the defendant a Training Centre report was called for consideration before sentence.

Facts

2.  During a roadblock interception by Police on 3 April 2017, the defendant being a passenger on board of a taxi was found conveying dangerous drug for reward. 

3.  At the time, the defendant was in possession of one mobile phone and cash $7,348 and holding a bag in which was a plastic bag containing:-

(a) 2 plastic bags containing a total of 27.1g of a solid containing 23.9g of ketamine; and

(b) 12 plastic bags containing a total of 32.2g of a solid containing 27.1g of ketamine.

4.  The defendant admitted under caution that he conveyed the dangerous drugs found on him for monetary reward because he was under financial difficulty.

5.  At all material times, the defendant was unemployed and the ketamine involved is around HK$11,118.

Mitigation

6.  The defendant aged 17, single, unemployed, living with his father and step-mother.  He had a bad relationship with his parents, with very little pocket money and resolved his matters by himself.

7.  The defendant has a clear record, he pleaded guilty and was very remorseful and regretted for committing the present offence.  Both of his natural parents visited him during his remand.  Mother was in court to show her support and submitted a mitigation letter for the defendant.  The defendant has been remanded since his arrest.  Mr Poon for the defendant acknowledged the sentencing tariff for ketamine but urged me to consider a Training Centre Order in sentencing in view of the defendant’s age and background.

8.  This morning Mr Poon confirmed that the report has been explained to the defendant and he agreed to the content of the report.  Mr Poon drew my attention to the information transpired in the report, the remorse attitude of the defendant and the recommendation of the assessment officer.

Sentence

9.  The Court of Appeal in Hii Siew Cheng CAAR7/2006 after consideration laid down the guideline for ketamine and ecstasy.  The guideline for trafficking between 10 gramme to 50 gramme of ketamine is 4 to 6 years.  And I also noted that the defendant has been remanded since 5 April 2017.

10.  Rehabilitation, however, is an important consideration in sentencing young offender.  A Training Centre Order is a possible alternative sentencing option in the present case.  Once imposed a Training Centre Order, the period of his committal is to be determined by the commissioner of the Correctional Services Department.  Normally it would not be less than 6 months, and shall not be more than 3 years from the date of order.  Upon release the offender is subject to supervision for a period of 3 years, time being he is obliged to observe the condition specified in the notice issued to him upon his release.  For any beach of the specified condition, the offender is liable to be recalled for a period until the expiration of 3 years from the date of his sentence, or the expiration of 6 months from the date of his remand under the order of recall, whichever is the later.  

11.  The defendant indicated his plea at the earliest opportunity.  In view of the age and clear record of the defendant, a Training Centre report was called for my consideration. 

12.  It is noted that the defendant has acquainted with baneful peers during his study of Form Two, since then he had close affiliation with members of triad society.  Without adequate parental guidance and control, he turned playful in character after befriending some dubious peer and lost his interest in study.  He developed a lax learning attitude, indulged in merriments and incurred a lot of amusement expenses.  The defendant enrolled on a 3-year Diploma in Youth College in September 2015 after he completed Form 3, but he was expelled from the school in January 2017 for failing to meet the minimum attendance requirement.  His greediness in earning fast money dragged him into trouble with law.  Though this was his first conviction, this was not the first time he trafficked in a dangerous drug. 

13.  Though the defendant claimed that he had already learnt a lesson during his pre-sentencing remand, the assessment officer was with the view that in the course of interview, the defendant showed little sense of remorse for his misbehaviour.  In discussing his future development, he claimed that he would like to resume his study after discharge.  However, his determination in turning over a new leaf and leading a law-abiding life was in doubt. 

14.  The defendant had a distant relationship with his divorced parents, his arrest of the present offence provided an opportunity for the parents to see their inadequacy in the past and how their lack of communication upon child issue could have affected their son.  Of course the defendant, too, had his responsibility.  There is no time for anyone to work out who was more to blame in the past.  What is important is the rehabilitation of the defendant.  No doubt the determination of the defendant is vital.  But to enhance the prospect of their son’s reformation, the parents are encouraged to work positively together with the officers of the Training Centre. 

15.  The defendant is mentally and physically fit for detention in a Training Centre.  From the information available and after a general assessment of his behaviour and attitude whilst on remand, he was considered suitable for detention in a Training Centre.  Having consider the Training Centre Report, I agreed with the assessment officer that in order to strengthen defendant’s law-abiding concept, a period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision was beneficial to his reformation.

16.  I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the community and that having regard to the defendant’s 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.

Order

17.  The defendant is committed to Training Centre.