|
DCCC 718/2019
[2019] HKDC 1542
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 718 OF 2019
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
| Present: |
Mr Raymond Chan, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR |
|
Ms Van Ma instructed by Messrs. Terry Yeung & Lai for the defendant. |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
--------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
--------------------------------------
1. The defendant, an 18-year-old young man who has never had any trouble with the police before, was caught red-handed when he was selling Ketamine to another man in an MTR station.
2. On the evening of 9 April 2019, unbeknown to the defendant a team of plainclothes officers had in fact closely monitored his every move when the defendant appeared in Kwai Fong MTR station. The defendant was seen approaching a man in the station, and then some sort of transaction was going on between them in which the defendant received cash from the other man who received something back in return.
3. Police took action and after a brief chase, the officers were able to subdue the defendant. From his hands, the officers seized $3,900 in cash and a mobile phone, and in his shorts, the officers further found a plastic bag containing 13 plastic bags of Ketamine (9.71g of a powder containing 7.05g of Ketamine). A further sum of cash ($4,702.5) was found and seized from the defendant.
4. Under caution, the defendant told the officers that a person known as “Ah Tin” instructed him to sell “K Chai” to a male over there on that day.
5. The defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of drug trafficking – the drugs are 9.71g of a powder containing 7.05g of Ketamine with an estimated street value of around $4,400.
6. The defendant is single and not a drug dependent, defence counsel said. Not being particularly good at academic, the defendant changed to study in the Vocational Training Council before completing Form 4, but unfortunately that did not work out well for him either, the defendant left the Council four months later and started doing part-time as a waiter.
7. He lives with his parents; both are in their fifties and are working – the father is a manager at a restaurant and mother is a clerk; the defendant has a younger brother (16) who is now in Hungary as an exchange student. Counsel said they are very close as a family
8. Although the defendant has been under the care of a social worker since the age of 15 as a result of his rebellious behavior, his offending, counsel said, was due to his association with triad peers.
9. Letters from various people including his mother, social worker, current employer have been submitted to the court to plead leniency on his behalf. They all spoke to his positive nature.
10. He was asked by a friend to sell Ketamine to others and would be paid $100 per a gram of drug he sold. Counsel said the defendant was hesitant at first but was eventually persuaded to do it because he was misled to believe that in the event of being caught, he would very likely be dealt with in a lenient way because of his young age.
11. Counsel emphasized that the defendant was only 17 at the time of the offence, and the decision to sell drugs would be one he lives to regret. Counsel went on to say that the defendant is truly remorseful for what he had done and promises not to re-offend; he even plans to resume study after release from prison.
12. On that note, despite what the Court of Appeal had said in Chau Tsz Tim CAAR 4/2014, counsel nevertheless urged the court to consider sending the defendant to training center. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to enable a Training Center report to be prepared for the defendant.
13. In Chau Tsz Tim, the Court of Appeal stated that:-
“When dealing with serious drug trafficking offences, the public interest requires that the deterrence of other potential offenders must take precedence over the rehabilitation of the particular offender before it. It is, therefore, not in the interests of the community to sentence young offenders to a training center.”
14. Now the report is before the court, which recommended the defendant to go to training center. Miss Ma pointed out the various positive features in the report and urged this court to follow the recommendation.
15. If I were to send him to prison, given the amount (7.05g) the defendant admitted trafficking, I would take 40 months as the starting point, and discount it for his guilty plea and good behavior in incarceration, he would probably be ended up doing about 18 months as the actual time.
16. Whilst in the training center, an inmate would spend an average of 18 months to 2 years, subjected to a recall order for those who behave badly after release to go back to the center to serve up to a maximum of 3 years in total.
17. In terms of actual detention, the above two options are more or less the same; that being the case, I would choose the one which would benefit the defendant the most, that is the training center.
18. The reason is simple, it is because in the training center the inmate is being trained to pick up a certain trade, and when he is out into the society, he would be better equipped and be able to establish himself in life.
19. With this in mind, I sentence the defendant to training center.
|