HKSAR v. HO HIN PONG

DCCC1066/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1066 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a single offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.

2.  You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you.

3.  Briefly, those facts were as follows.  On 22 May of this year police were on patrol around Yiu Wing House, Yiu On Estate, Ma On Shan.  Around 8.34 pm outside Room 2010, PW1 found you acting furtively and intercepted you for a search. 

4.  The search revealed 2 plastic bags wrapped in tissue containing suspected ketamine were found inside your waist band.  You were arrested and admitted that an unknown male at a taxi stand in Yiu On Estate had asked you to deliver them to an unknown male for $200.

5.  The two plastic bags with suspected dangerous drugs were examined and found to contain respectively 13.33 grammes of a powder containing 10.50 grammes of ketamine and 2.83 grammes of a powder containing 2.12 grammes of ketamine.  

6.  You admitted to three subsequent convictions all on the same occasion for similar offences.  I say subsequent because you have committed this offence prior to being placed in a detention centre.

7.  As you are only 17 years of age and at the time of the commission of the offence of clear record, I adjourned the case for a probation officer’s background report and also I asked for a training centre report.  I put on record that no matter what the recommendation was, I reserved myself the right to sentence in any way I found just.  In other words, whilst I should prepare to consider a training centre, I was not bound by that recommendation. 

8.  I have read those reports and take them fully into consideration when I sentence you.  I do note that training centre is recommended. 

9.  Mr Tam, on your behalf, entered mitigation.  He told me that you are 17 years of age, Form 5 and educated, you come from a stable family.  Your parents were present in court to support you.  He referred to your schooling and your involvement in swimming.  Your plea of guilty shows a genuine remorse, he submitted.  He produced for me to consider two letters of support from your parents and from your sister.  Your sister, I note, is studying at university.  Again, like the reports, I have taken those fully into consideration. 

10.  Mr Tam whilst acknowledging that generally age in trafficking in dangerous drugs is not to be regarded as a genuine mitigating factor except in exceptional circumstances did ask me to follow the recommendations for training centre.  He submitted the fact that you had given in to momentary greed that could be considered as an exceptional circumstance and presumably the small amount of reward you were to receive.

11.  He referred me to the case of Attorney General v Kong Kin Man Court of Appeal Application Review No.13/1996.  In that case the Court of Appeal substituted an order for detention for a training centre order.  The court did find there were exceptional circumstances in that case.  And I do note that in that case, and I refer to paragraph 2 of the headnote where the case of Attorney General v Suen Yuen Ming [1989] 2 HKLR 403 was referred to, the court said that youth is rarely a mitigating factor leading to the making of a training centre order.

12.  I turn now to the sentence.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs is regarded as a serious offence in Hong Kong and quite rightly so. Whilst I do note that you are only 17 years of age, I have to tell you I can find no exceptional circumstances in this case which would allow me to depart from the usual tariff.  To regard youth as a mitigating factor would lead to the exploitation of the young but the masterminds behind the drug trafficking trade.  I therefore decline to follow the recommendation.

13.  I note in this case the amount of drugs involved is just over 12 grammes.  I take into account at the time of the commission of the offence you were a person of clear record, I therefore propose to take the lowest tariff of the scale. I take a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment. That will be reduced to 2 years and 8 months, to reflect your plea of guilty. I impose that sentence.