HKSAR v. CHEUNG TZE HO

DCCC 47/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 47 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.   The particulars of the offence are that on 4 November 2011, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in 240 grammes of a powder containing 60 grammes of ketamine.

3.   The facts are very straightforward and simple.  On 4 November, at about half-past 10 in the evening, the police, who were on patrol, saw the defendant looking suspicious.  They approached the defendant, and stopped and searched him.  Their suspicions were very accurate, they found a bag of powder containing ketamine concealed between the back of the defendant’s waist and his jeans.

4.   The defendant admitted under caution that he was delivering ketamine for a reward of $500.  He fully cooperated with the police after his arrest.  He further informed the police that he was delivering for a male named Ah Shun for a reward.

5.   The street value of the drugs was $28,000-odd.

6.   The defendant was only a few days over his 17th birthday at the time of his arrest.  He had a clear record.  He was cautioned by a superintendant for a theft offence in July 2011, and it is a shame that was not a wake-up call for the defendant.

7.   After hearing full mitigation, I called for a background report due to the defendant’s age.  I will not repeat all the details, but I have been told that its contents are accurate.  The report confirms what I was told in mitigation and heard in the mitigation letters from the defendant and his parents.

8.   The defendant was brought up by his grandparents, but his grandfather died when he was about 7.  And although his parents did not live with the defendant, they kept a very close contact with the defendant.  In fact, their family has been described as “harmonious”.

9.   After he became a teenager, as is sometimes the case, his family were ignorant of his friends and social activities.  His parents are shocked that he had triad affiliation and became involved in not only taking drugs, but delivering drugs for easy money.

10.   The defendant is very remorseful and he now fully recognises the seriousness of this offence and his lifestyle.

11.   The report says his parents put it down to his immaturity and that he is also easily led astray.  That may be the truth, but the defendant also admits he did it for fast money and to sustain his hedonistic lifestyle.  Nonetheless, his parents remain very supportive.

12.   I told the defendant on his plea day that his young age is not a mitigating factor to significantly reduce his sentence. There is a reason for this, and the Court of Appeal has said it time and time again: traffickers and masterminds of drug trafficking rings would target youngsters to act as couriers if they perceived the courts treated youth as an exceptional mitigation.  I will, of course, take it into account, but what it means is I cannot depart significantly from the guidelines.

13.   The guidelines for trafficking ketamine are very clear.  The authority this court follows is HKSAR v. Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 325.  The relevant guidelines would be here, where 50 to 300 grammes is trafficked, a 6 to 9 year term of imprisonment is appropriate.  Mathematically-speaking, I should be considering at least a six year starting point according to the guidelines.  However, after considering your mitigation, plea of guilty, letters from the defendant and his parents, the background report, as well as your previous clear record and your age, I will take a lower starting point for this cumulative mitigation. 

14.   Defendant, please stand up. 

15.   I will take a five year starting point. You pleaded guilty, you are entitled to a discount of one-third. 

16.   So, for this charge, you will be sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment.