DCCC953/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 953 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant was convicted upon his guilty plea of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In sentencing, I take into account the whole circumstances of the case including its nature and facts, in particular the nature and quantity of the dangerous drugs involved; background of the defendant; and mitigation put forward on his behalf by learned defence counsel.

2.  The facts of the case are simple. The defendant was stopped on the street. Upon search, 2 transparent re-sealable plastic bags were found at his front waist area. Inside the bags were another 2 transparent bags containing powder later confirmed to be containing ketamine. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he acted as a courier to deliver the K‑Chai to other persons. In a subsequent interview, the defendant further admitted that he was told to collect $2,700 from the buyer and the reward he was to receive was $200.

3.  The defendant is 18 years of age. He is single. His father deserted the family when he was born. As a result, the defendant was brought up by his mother and grandmother. His mother later remarried. Whilst the relationship between the defendant and his mother and grandmother remained good, it was not as good with the stepfather.

4.  The defendant worked as a casual decoration worker earning about $7,500 a month. He gave about $1,500 to $2,000 to his grandmother. Shortly before the offence his supervisor left the job and as a result he lost his employment. Having no income, he felt distressed and worried. Eventually, he was lured to commit the offence to earn quick money. I was told that the defendant was now remorseful and was prepared to turn over a new leaf.

5.  It is sad to see once again a young person being manipulated and exploited to engage in this very serious offence.

6.  I am asked to consider a background report before consideration of sentence. Having made further inquiries with learned defence counsel, I do not see the need to use public resources for this purpose. Counsel is in a position to tell the court everything about the background of the defendant.

7.  Despite his young age, the defendant is not a first‑time offender. In 2008, when he was 16 years of age, he was convicted on four occasions: two times for theft, one time for possession of dangerous drugs and one time for burglary. For the first conviction of theft and the conviction of possession of dangerous drugs he was sentenced to receive training at a Rehabilitation Centre. For the other two convictions he was respectively sentenced to receive training at a Training Centre. Apparently, these trainings had little positive impact on the rehabilitation of the defendant. Not long after discharge from the training he committed a further offence and a much more serious one. The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was ketamine. The quantity concerned was 46.78 grammes.

8.  In the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR7/2006, the Court of Appeal indicated a tariff for sentencing for a trafficker in such dangerous drug. If the quantity of ketamine trafficked is 10 to 50 grammes, the sentence to be considered is 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

9.  In all the circumstances, I am of the view that an imprisonment term is warranted. Despite the defendant is only 18 years of age, the court has consistently held that for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, unless it is a case of extreme youth, youth generally is not a reason to reduce the sentence. Deterrence is an important factor in sentencing for this nature of offence and the court should not only give regard to the rehabilitation needs of the defendant. If any precedents are required, I will cite R v Lau Tak Ming, [1990] 2HKLR 370, AG v Suen Yuet Ming [1989] 2HKLR 403 and R v Yiu Kwong Shui, CACC377/1995.

10.  The defendant is not a person of extreme youth. Besides, he has been given chances to receive training for his rehabilitation. He not only did not make good use of the opportunities, he went on to commit an even more serious offence.

11.  The court was informed that the defendant is drug-dependent. I do not consider it necessary to consider sending him to DATC for treatment. In the light of the length of the imprisonment term I am going to impose, there is sufficient facility in the CSD institutions to assist the defendant to get rid of the drug habit.

12.  Having considered the whole circumstances including mitigation, I do not consider there exist sufficient reasons not to follow the tariff. In Lau Tak Ming, the Court of Appeal said that within the suggested bands the court should take into account the following factors:

the profit which may reasonably be expected;

the number of packets;

the type of mixture containing the narcotic; and

the degree of the involvement of the offender and his previous history of narcotics offences.

13.  Notwithstanding the record of the defendant, this is the first time he is convicted of the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In all the circumstances, I consider a starting point of 57 months appropriate.

14.  The defendant pleaded guilty. He is entitled to a one-third discount. I am prepared to give the defendant a further discount of six months for his young age and as a token to encourage him to rehabilitate. I hope the defendant will realise that this is really his last chance and if he does not make a good endeavour to turn over a new leaf, his life will be ruined.

15.  Based on the matters aforesaid, I sentence the defendant to 32 months’ imprisonment.