|
DCCC 91/2014
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 91 OF 2014
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Yun Ka-long |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
HH Judge Casewell |
| Date: |
27 March 2014 at 9.39 am |
| Present: |
Ms Chan Sze-yan, SPP(Ag) of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Tse Wing-lok, Dennis, of Christine M Koo & Ip, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, that being on 3 December last year in the Super Lounge Basement in Tsim Sha Tsui. The drug in question is ketamine, and the quantity is 23.73 grammes of that drug.
2. The defendant has admitted the facts of the case, and I have convicted him accordingly.
3. The facts are very straightforward. The police were conducting an anti-drug operation in the Super Lounge, a basement bar in Tsim Sha Tsui, on the evening of 3 December 2013. The defendant was apprehended when he walked into that bar holding a brown paper bag. On a search of the brown paper bag 82 pieces of folded paper were found underneath a black T‑shirt. The drug was found inside the folded papers.
4. The defendant under caution said that he brought the ketamine to the bar for his own consumption. By his plea the defendant admitted that his actual purpose was for trafficking in the drug. The street value of the ketamine was estimated at $2,871‑odd.
5. The defendant admitted his antecedents, which included his criminal record. The defendant has two previous convictions for possession of a dangerous drug, and he has been placed on probation in respect of those convictions and also for breach of a probation order. It is clear the defendant has breached the law in respect of dangerous drugs since 2008.
6. The defendant is aged 22 years old. He is still a young man. I obtained a background report on him because he is a young man. His life has been marred by his addiction to the drug ketamine, and it can be seen that that occurred at a young age, with his first conviction being in 2008. He was placed on probation for 12 months on that occasion. It was eventually extended to 24 months, involving voluntary drug treatment for him. This was unsuccessful, his last conviction being in 2012.
7. The defendant has told the probation services he started to use ketamine since about 2006. It appears that he now has quit consumption of the drug.
8. The probation services provided a helpful summary of the defendant’s background, describing him as coming from a simple family, with good family relationships. He was badly influenced by his peers during schooling and took up the drug.
9. There is evidence the defendant has pursued useful work. There are letters from the Construction Industry Employees’ General Union and also from his previous employers. One could have, I think, guarded optimism about the defendant’s future if he can put the consumption of drugs behind him. As I said, he has worked as a pipelaying fitter in the past, so there is the opportunity of useful employment for him when he finishes any sentence of imprisonment that will be imposed.
10. The defendant has shown remorse, and I have had access to a letter that he has written. In mitigation it was said the defendant was simply a courier of the drug. There is evidence he has tried to assume the role of the breadwinner within his own family and that he is remorseful today.
11. As far as sentence is concerned, the courts are largely bound by the guideline sentences that are imposed in these matters. There is no compelling reason for me to substantially depart from the guideline sentence. One must always bear in mind the defendant is still a young man, and it is inappropriate to unnecessarily overburden a person of that age with lengthy sentences.
12. The quantity of drug in this case is 23.73 grammes of ketamine. This puts it within the guideline sentence for quantities between 10 and 50 grammes, and the range of sentencing for that quantity is between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment, so that is the range for this defendant.
13. Having regard to the mitigating factors, I consider that I will take the lowest point in the range for sentencing as my starting point for sentence. That would be a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled by his plea of guilty to a deduction of one-third of that sentence. I will credit him with that one-third discount.
14. This leads to a final sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, and that is the sentence that will be imposed.
|
(T Casewell)
|
|
District Judge |
|