HKSAR v. CHENG PUI LEONG

DCCC 849/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 849 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Charge 1 involves on the 23 June 2016, 9.71 grammes of a powder containing 4.74 grammes of ketamine. This ketamine was found on the defendant. As for the drugs for Charge 2, they involve 2.85 grammes of a powder containing 1.69 grammes of ketamine found on the same day in the defendant’s home. The total amount of ketamine for both charges is 6.43 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The facts of this case are straightforward.  On the 23 June this year, at about 7 pm, plainclothes police officers were on patrol on Lung Mun Road, Tuen Mun.  They spotted the defendant looking suspicious and stopped him.  They had grounds to search him, and in his trouser pockets, they found a total of five transparent plastic bags containing the ketamine of Charge 1.

3.  Upon arrest and caution, the defendant admitted he was delivering ketamine to others for $50 per bag delivered.  Later, in a home search, the police found another two bags of ketamine, these being the drugs for Charge 2, as well as an electric scale and 38 empty transparent plastic bags.  The defendant later admitted to the police that these items were used for weighing, packing and dividing up the dangerous drugs.

4.  In a video-recorded interview, the defendant made a full admission.  He explained where he got the drugs from and what he was paid for delivering each bag.  He admitted to the police that he was an occasional drug user but did not consider himself an addict.

5.  Street value of the drugs here is an estimate of $1,600‑odd.

6.  The defendant is not a man with a clear record. He has two previous convictions for common assault and acting as a member of a triad society for which he was sentenced to probation for both convictions. 

7.  The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.  Mr Chui has said all he can on behalf of the defendant.  The defendant is now 20 years old, young but not so young that he does not know the difference between right and wrong nor the seriousness and evil of trafficking dangerous drugs.  He is the only child of loving and supportive parents.  They knew nothing of his drug activity or any of his activities outside of the home.  He is lucky that his parents are still supportive despite this third conviction.

8.  The defendant has written a letter to the court, expressing his remorse, and he is sorry for disappointing his parents.  He has explained how he got mixed up with undesirable peers but has promised to turn over a new leaf.

9.  I adjourned on the last occasion for reports. The reports have come back.  The defendant is not deemed to be a drug addict. The reports recommend detention centre.  The defendant does not want to go to detention centre I am sure because he has heard that it is hard work plus there is a supervision order at the end of it which he does not want to be constrained by.

10.  I will not repeat the details of the report but it gives me a full idea of the defendant’s family background, his education and how and when he went astray, including joining a triad society.  He discovered that it was easy to make money by delivering drugs, and despite his probation-order experiences, he did not stay away from undesirable peers.

11.  I may have considered it appropriate to consider a detention centre order here because of the report and the quantity and nature of the drugs.  But after careful consideration, I consider a term of imprisonment appropriate, more appropriate in view of the seriousness of the offence.

12.  The Court of Appeal has set out guidelines for trafficking ketamine in the authority of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  In that authority, the Court of Appeal has said where between 1 to 10 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, a 2-to-4-year term of imprisonment would be appropriate.  Here, a starting point for this amount of ketamine would be just over 3 years and 3 months’ starting point. 

13.  Defendant, please stand up.  I take into account your plea, mitigation put forward, details in the reports, facts of this case, I take for Charge 1 a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and for Charge 2 a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment.  You have pleaded guilty.  You are entitled to a discount of one-third.  After that discount is applied, for Charge 1, you are sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment; Charge 2, a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months.  Both charges will be served concurrently.  Therefore, it is a total sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.