HKSAR v. CHAN PAK KEN

DCCC563/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 563 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant in this case has pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in 26.16 grammes of ketamine.

2. The circumstances admitted by the defendant are that at 6.17 pm on 25 April, officers in uniform in Kai Tin Shopping Centre in Kai Tin Estate, Lam Tin, noticed the defendant acting furtively.  He was pressing his trousers’ pocket and walking away quickly when he saw the officer in uniform.

3. He was intercepted for inquiry and a search revealed that there was a transparent plastic bag containing drugs in the folded sleeve of his shirt.  He was arrested and under caution, he said that they were drugs and he was in possession of the drugs for his own consumption.

4. Upon a further search conducted inside a police vehicle, a transparent plastic bag containing 18 transparent resealable plastic bags containing further drugs was found hidden in his underpants.  He was arrested and under caution, he said that a man called Ah Man asked him to spread the stuff at the 7-Eleven Convenience Store in Kai Tin.

5. In a video-recorded interview, he said Ah Man instructed him to go to the Kwong Tin Estate to collect ketamine and a mobile phone from a fire hose, and he did so at about 4 o’clock that day.  He counted that there were 20 small plastic bags of ketamine inside a larger plastic bag, and upon the instructions of Ah Man, he sold a packet of ketamine for $200 to an unknown male at the taxi stand outside the Lam Tin MTR Station. He said that he would earn $50 for selling each packet of ketamine. 

6. Cash of $1,231 and two mobile phones were found in his possession, and the average retail price for ketamine in April 2012 was $117 per gramme.  So the estimated street value of the drugs seized from the defendant was just over $3,500.

7. The defendant has a clear record, and given his age, I adjourned the case on the previous occasion so that I could have the advantage of a report as to his suitability for admission to a training centre.  I now have the advantage of that report and the medical officer who saw the defendant was of the view that the defendant was drug-dependent, and because of that, he is not suitable for admission to the training centre.

8. The report discloses that the defendant was brought up in a broken family.  He was the only child of his parents and his parents showed lots of concern to the defendant.  But, unfortunately, owing to their marital discord, they could not render him adequate guidance and supervision in his early teens.  At that stage in his life, he turned wild and his behaviour deteriorated gradually after associating with some triad-related peers.  He started to abuse “Ice” in January 2012 and he was keen to earn easy money for pleasure-seeking activities and also to support his drug habit.

9. Counsel has placed before the court a number of letters, one of which was from the defendant.  The defendant says that whilst he has been in custody, he has had an opportunity of reflecting on his situation, and he said that he is now very remorseful for what he does and realised that he has wasted his life.  He said that he undertakes to take a course of study and hopes to find employment when he is subsequently released from custody.

10. There is a letter from a teacher at his former school.  The teacher was impressed by the defendant as a kind-hearted student. He said in his junior school, he was found to be clever and smart but later he became lazy.  He said that he is sure that the defendant now regrets his actions and wants another chance, and he sees some potential in the defendant.

11. There is also placed before the court a letter from a former employer.  The defendant worked at a restaurant of this employer and the employer describes the defendant as hardworking and with a sense of responsibility.

12. I note from  the training centre suitability report that whilst at the training centre for assessment, his attitude was described as being not unambiguously positive.  And as counsel has quite rightly acknowledged, my sentencing options, because of this report, are somewhat limited. 

13. The normal sentence for possession of between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is in the region of 4 to 6 years.  The defendant was in possession of just over 26 grammes which would put the sentence that would normally be attracted as near to 5 years. 

14. I have taken into account the defendant’s age and I have taken into account his clear record and the fact that he has taken the trouble to write a letter expressing his remorse and I have looked at the other letters which have been submitted on his behalf.

15. What I have decided to do is take the sentence at the lowest end of that range, namely, a sentence of 4 years, and reduce that by one-third to reflect his guilty plea.  That will mean the defendant will go to prison for 32 months.  If he behaves himself in prison, of course he will be entitled to a discount from that sentence.