HKSAR v. TSUI WAI KIT AND ANOTHER

DCCC 674/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 674 OF 2010

____________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.  The Defendant, D1 on the indictment and so termed throughout, has been convicted on his own plea on one count (Charge 1 on the indictment) of possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to Section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drug Ordinance, Cap. 134, the dangerous drugs being 16.10 grammes of a powder containing 13.63 grammes of ketamine.  D1 had indicated from the outset his intention to plead guilty.  When he first appeared before my learned brother His Honour Judge Stanley Chan on 2 July 2010, the matter was adjourned for him to obtain legal advice.  When it resumed before His Honour Judge Chan on 30 July 2010, it was indicated that he would plead guilty.  It was then adjourned to 25 August 2010 for plea.  At the hearing on 25 August 2010, before His Honour Judge Douglas Yau, D1 admitted the charge that he faced, as well as the summary of facts, and was duly convicted. Sentence was adjourned to 3 December 2010 until the conclusion of the trial of D2, who had indicated that he would deny the charges that he faced.  D1 had indicated through his Counsel his intention to give evidence on behalf of the Prosecution in the trial of D2.  Subsequently, D2’s legal representative indicated that D2 would be admitting the charges that he faced, thus it was not necessary for D1 to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution.  At the hearing before me on 25 October 2010, D2 admitted the charges that he faced in the present case, as well as those that he faced in DCCC 566/2010 for trafficking in dangerous drugs,  and was duly convicted.  His sentence was adjourned until 8 November 2010, when I sentenced him to a total of 6 years’ imprisonment on all the charges that he had admitted.  On the same day, D1 herein appeared before me and re-confirmed his plea and admission of the facts, upon which I convicted him on the charge that he faced.

2.  Facts admitted by D1 disclose that on 1 May 2010, police officer were carrying out an operation and keeping a residential unit, Room 1229, Chak Tsui House, Wan Tsui Estate, Chai Wan, under observation.  At about 9.55 p.m., D1 was seen coming out of the premises, which were D2’s premises.  He was followed by a police officer and subsequently intercepted outside the Wan Tsui Commercial Complex.  Upon search, two transparent plastic bags containing the dangerous drugs as set out in the particulars of charge 1 were found from him.  He was arrested and admitted under caution that he had purchased the dangerous drugs inside the premises from D2 on the indictment for self-consumption.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he said he went to D2’s flat and gave him HK$500 to purchase the ketamine in question, and the drugs were for self-consumption.  The street value of the said dangerous drugs at the material time was approximately HK$1,499.30.

3.  The Defendant is now aged 17 years.  He had a previous clear record, although he had received a Superintendant’s caution on 3 June 2008 for an offence of theft.  His parents were in Court with him to show their support.  In view of his age and at the request of Defence Counsel, I adjourned sentence until today, calling for the full range of reports – Probation and Community Service Order Reports, Rehabilitation Centre, Detention Centre, Training Centre and Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Reports.  Counsel reserved mitigation.

4.  Those reports are now before me and I have duly considered the contents therein.  I have also borne in mind all that has been urged upon me in mitigation by Counsel on his behalf.  His background is set out in great detail in the various reports before me and I do not intend to rehearse the contents herein.  Suffice to say that his is not an unusual story – he left school at the age of 15 years after finishing Form 3 as he was not interested in studying.  He took up various jobs, and immediately before being remanded in custody, he worked as a roasted meat apprentice in a restaurant earning $12,000 a month.  Although he was able to behave properly whilst at school, his behaviour soon deteriorated after leaving school.  He got involved with undesirable friends and indulged in a decadent lifestyle of late night activities, resulting in quarrels with his parents because of his unruly lifestyle.  Two years ago, under the influence of his friends, he started to take ketamine.  He stopped after a while, but relapsed to taking it again.  D1 has indicated to the Probation Officer who interviewed him that he regrets the present offence, and regrets his addiction.  He had expressed a wish to be sent to the DATC for rehabilitation to the interviewing Probation Officer.  His parents too expressed a wish that he gets treatment for his addiction and hope that he can be sent to the DATC.  The Probation Officer opines that in view of his persistent drug-taking habit, community rehabilitative measures such as probation or community service are not suitable and therefore not recommended. He was examined by a medical officer who is of the opinion that he is a drug dependant, and thus unsuitable for the Rehabilitation, Detention and Training Centre programmes.  He is considered suitable for the DATC programme and that has been recommended.  When interviewed, he was polite and frank with the interviewing officer, expressing his remorse and regret.  He attributed his offending to his own weak willpower and adverse peers’ influence.  He sought a chance of open supervision, saying he would get a stable job, stay away from dangerous drugs and cut off from undesirable peer association in future.  However, it is clear from the report that even whilst on bail for the present offence, he continued to take dangerous drugs, and it was the opinion of the interviewing officer that in view of his drug problem, a compulsory drug treatment programme would be beneficial to him.

5.  For young offenders such as the Defendant, rehabilitation is an important consideration.  Clearly his addiction is the root of his problems, and treatment for this is of paramount importance.  That can best be provided through the DATC programme.  In my view, that is the most appropriate sentence in the circumstances.  The Defendant is sentenced to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre, with conviction to be recorded.  I note that he has a supportive family, and their support will certainly help him in the months to come as he deals with his addiction problem.