HKSAR v. OR KA WAI

DCCC 1042/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1042 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant, Or Ka-wai, is a 19-year-old young man. He pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2. The offence concerned 10.82 grammes of a solid containing 5.77 grammes of cocaine.  The defendant committed the offence on the 23rd day of August, 2013.

3. At about 9 pm on the day in question, police officer PC5699 conducted an anti-drug patrol.  He spotted the defendant walking out of Shek Yat House (High Block), Shek Lei Estate, Kwai Chung.  The defendant appeared to be anxious.  The officer intercepted the defendant and searched the defendant.  At that stage, no dangerous drug was found on the defendant.

4. The police officer then brought the defendant to his residence.  A house search was carried out. Upon searching the defendant’s upper bunk bed, a white paper box was found. Inside the paper box, a resealable transparent plastic bag containing 41 resealable transparent plastic bags containing suspected cocaine, a silver-coloured electronic scale, and 11 resealable transparent plastic bags were found.

5. Under caution, the defendant asked for a chance, and he admitted selling “coke” to others because he was in need of money.

6. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted the suspected dangerous drugs was cocaine.  He bought the cocaine, the silver-coloured electronic scale, and the plastic bags at $6,800 from an unknown male called “Ah Wah”.  He planned to sell the cocaine to teenagers inside amusement game centre at HK$300 per packet.  He put the cocaine, the silver‑coloured electronic scale and the resealable transparent plastic bags under the pillow of his upper bunk bed in his residence.

7. The 41 plastic bags containing suspected dangerous drugs were later examined by the Government Chemist and found to contain a total of 10.82 grammes of a solid containing 5.77 grammes of cocaine.  The electronic scale was found to contain traces of a powder containing cocaine.

8. The estimated total market value of the dangerous drugs seized is $10,592.

9. The defendant had twice been convicted for theft in 2009 and 2011.  He was put on probation order on both occasions.

10. Mr Lo in mitigation told me that the defendant was only 18 years old when he was arrested.  He has no dangerous drug‑related conviction.  Mr Lo told me the defendant promises not to reoffend ever again.  Mr Lo also submitted that the defendant had co‑operated with the police since his arrest.  He draws my attention to the case Lau Tak Ming which set down the guidelines for trafficking of heroin, which also applies to cocaine trafficking.  For trafficking up to 10 grammes of dangerous drugs the appropriate starting point is 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment.  Mr Lo submits that given the quantity of drugs involved, ie 5.77 grammes of cocaine, a starting point of 3.5 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

11. I called for a training centre report before sentence.  The report sets out the background information of the defendant.  In the conclusion of the report, the intake officer opines that the defendant grew up in a single-parent family. Throughout the upbringing of the defendant, parental supervision was ineffective.  The defendant became rebellious after mingling with some undesirable peers in his teens.  Though the defendant had been twice cautioned by the police and twice put on probation, he had little reflection into his own problem.  The intake officer points out that in order to help the defendant develop more insight into his problems, a period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision would be beneficial to the defendant.

12. Mr Lo told me this morning that the defendant wants to go to prison instead of the training centre.

13. The offence that the defendant pleaded guilty to is a serious one.  As rightly pointed out by Mr Lo, given the quantity of cocaine involved in this case, if I were to sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment, a starting point of 3.5 years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate.  Of course, the defendant would be entitled to one‑third reduction.  If I were to sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment, the appropriate term would have been 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

14. The average detention time for training centre is 18 months.  Bearing in mind that the defendant has been in custody since his arrest in late August, if I sentence the defendant to a training centre, the time that he has to spend in custody would be more or less the same as the time he would have to spend in prison.

15. In my judgment, a training centre order has the additional benefit of providing the defendant with a period of disciplinary training which is beneficial to the rehabilitation of the defendant when compared to a prison term.  In addition, upon his discharge the defendant will be subject to a period of statutory supervision.

16. I agree with the intake officer that a training centre order would be beneficial to the defendant in that it would help him to develop more insight into his problems.

17. In my judgment, bearing in mind the interest of the defendant and the serious nature of the offence, a training centre order is the appropriate sentence in this case.

18. For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to be detained in a training centre.