HKSAR v. CHENG TSZ HONG

DCCC 611/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 611 OF 2010

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to the amended charge of possession of 26.40 grammes of a powder containing 21.54 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134.

2.  In summary in the early evening of the 15th April this year the police carried out an anti dangerous drug operation at Apm Millenium City shopping centre in Kwun Tong.  The defendant was stopped and searched outside the Hang Heng Cake Shop. The police found from the left front pocket of the defendant’s trousers one re-sealable transparent bag containing two re-sealable transparent bags inside which was the ketamine.  Under caution the defendant said the ketamine was for his own consumption. 

3.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Kan together with the letter submitted by the defendant today.  I take into account this is the defendant’s first conviction relating to dangerous drugs. 

4.  The DATC report details the defendant’s drug history.  The defendant first took ketamine in 2007 and would abuse the drug twice per week.  Notwithstanding the defendant said under caution that he consumed around 3 grammes per day he is found not to be a drug dependant.

5.  The quantity possessed by the defendant, 21.54 grammes, was quite substantial and carries with it a clear latent risk factor, in particular according to the DATC report the defendant alleged he last took Ketamine in January this year, some 3 months prior to his arrest.  Applying the principles in HKSAR v MOK Cho-tik [2001] 1 HKC 261 as applied in HKSAR v HO Ka-kei CACC 378/2009, I take as my starting point 18 months imprisonment, which I increase by 6 months to 2 years imprisonment to reflect the latent risk.    

6.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is sentenced to 1 year and 4 months imprisonment.  

7.  I note that after his arrest the defendant was sentenced to              4 months imprisonment in the Tuen Mun Magistracy, which sentence he has now served.  2 months was for possession of an offensive weapon and 2 months for breach of a suspended sentence imposed for an offence of assault.  Whilst I do not have the date of the offences they are clearly by their very nature separate and distinct from the drug offence.  Had the suspended sentence not already been activated the drug offence would have placed him in breach of that sentence.  Taking into account totality of sentence I am satisfied had all matters been dealt with at the same time wholly consecutive sentences would have been imposed.