HKSAR v. YIM KA CHUN

DCCC505/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 505 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of a dangerous drug. The offence was committed on 16 March 2011 in Tai Po.

2.  The defendant was in the total possession of 12.95 grammes of a powder containing 6.95 grammes of ketamine.

3.  The defendant agreed a set of facts and on 28 June I convicted him.  I adjourned the sentence until today and sought reports from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and the Detention Centre.

4.  Dealing with the facts of this case they are unremarkable.  And anti-dangerous drug operation was conducted in the vicinity and of Wan Tau Tong Estate in Tai Po.  The defendant was intercepted coming out of the lift lobby of the building there.  Two re-sealable plastic bags were found in his right pocket.  One contained two packets of ketamine, the other one nine packets of ketamine.  The defendant was arrested.  He said the drugs were for his own consumption. He had a small amount of cash in his possession.

5.  Later in a video recorded interview he said he bought the drugs from a man called Ah Wai for $800 at the playground downstairs.  This was the third time he had purchased the drug.  He inhaled ketamine one or two times a week consuming about a gramme each time.  Those facts were sufficient on which to convict the defendant of the offence for which he was charged.

6.  The antecedence shows that at the time he was aged 22 years.  Education up to Secondary 3 level in Tai Po.  He had worked as a decorative worker.  The defendant was a person, at the time of his arrest, of clear record.  As I said I sought a report from the Correctional Service Department which assessed the suitability for Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and Detention Centre.

7.  The defendant is 22 so he is still eligible for Detention Centre and ineligible for all other training programmes. 

8.  The report very briefly says that he is suitable for admission to a drug addiction treatment centre.  Because of that he is not suitable for detention in a Detention Centre.  The defendant is said to be a drug dependent.  The report sets out his background and history. 

9.  I note that the defendant, when interviewed, hoped for a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed.  He is also described as having no deep sense of remorse.  The defendant is described of growing up in a working class family the younger of two siblings.  It appears that he became with the Wo Shing Wo Triad Society after entering senior school.  He had a poor disciplinary record, dropped out of school after Form 2 and adopted an aimless lifestyle.  He has kept close association with triads and peers, taking various types of dangerous drugs since mid 2004. 

10.  The conclusion is simply that in view of his drug taking behaviour a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Programme and statutory supervision would benefit him.  Defendant is confirmed to be a drug addict.

11.  I need to consider the appropriate for this defendant.  He is a first offender.  A first drug offender.  For a person in his position, obviously rehabilitation is a priority to be explored.  The defendant’s medically assessed drug dependency is also an important factor to be considered.  Without that being dealt with then it is likely he would relapse to taking dangerous drugs if released. 

12.  The quantity of drug that the defendant was found with I would describe as neither large nor small.  I consider, in the defendant’s case the recommendation from the Correctional Services Department, is the appropriate sentencing option.  Clearly because of his attitude and his dependency he requires a treatment programme and statutory supervision.

13.  I concluded that a period of detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre is the appropriate sentence for the defendant on this charge.  A conviction will be recorded.