|
DCCC 41/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 41 OF 2013
----------------------
----------------------
| Date: |
20 February 2013 at 11.42 am |
| Present: |
Mr Gary Leung, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Ms Susan Liang, of Yip, Tse & Tang, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in 89.86 grammes of ketamine.
2. At 5 pm on 12 November he was spotted by officers acting furtively outside the ground floor of No 18 Oi Yin Street, Shau Kei Wan. The officers approached him and told him that they were going to search him, and upon doing do, he took out the drugs, the subject of the charge, and admitted that they were dangerous drugs.
3. He admitted the offence saying that he wanted to earn some quick cash. When he was searched, $6,820 was found in his wallet, $3,892.50 in his rear pocket. He had two mobile phones and two SIM cards.
4. Under interview at the police station, he told the police that he had recently left school and was working temporarily. He said that two months previously he met a man called Tung Chai in a cyber café in Kwun Tong and he gave Tung Chai his phone number and Tung Chai called him on the day of the offence.
5. He said that two weeks prior to that, Tung Chai gave him a SIM card and told him that it was for business purpose. He was told by somebody describing himself as the boss that the suspected dangerous drugs were to be located at the back of a toilet bowl in the washroom of the 1st floor of Oi Tung Shopping Centre, and he was told to conceal the drugs in his underwear. He was told by the boss to take the drugs to a certain place and that he was told that he would later receive his reward which was to be left in the staircase for him to retrieve.
6. He claimed that the money in his wallet was his earnings from the previous month and the money in his rear pocket had been won in gambling.
7. The value of the ketamine was just in excess of $14,000.
8. The defendant is aged 19 and has a clear record. He was educated to Form 6 standard and left school in July 2012. He was born on the mainland and came to Hong Kong when he was young. His parents live on welfare, and in 2001 his father had a heart attack and has been unable to work since then because of heart disease and his mother looks after him.
9. He said that he has been working as a part-time delivery worker earning some $400 per day, on an average the total was about $3,000 per month. I am told that he is not a drug addict. There is no doubt that he was co-operative with the police; he volunteered information to them. And it was urged upon me that his involvement in this offence was at the proportionately low end of the chain of the criminality involved.
10. A letter has been placed before the court from the father of the defendant who asks for a chance for his son and says that he blamed himself for having failed to give his son appropriate guidance.
11. In a letter from the defendant, the defendant states that he committed the offence in order to obtain quick money and he very much regrets the anxieties caused to his parents. He says that they have visited him whilst he has been in prison and he very much values the support they have given to him.
12. The offence is clearly a serious offence. As counsel has quite rightly acknowledged, the Court of Appeal has said that for quantities of ketamine involved in this case, the appropriate sentence is in the 6 to 9 year category, and that category starts at 50 grammes and the amount involved in this case were 89.86 grammes.
13. There is no doubt that the defendant was part of what was a sophisticated drug distribution operation. I accept what his counsel has said that he has been co-operative with the police, he has a clear record and he is only 19 years of age. However, in view of the quantity of drugs involved, it seems to this court that a sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence that can be imposed.
14. Having considered all the circumstances, I propose to take a starting point at the lower end of the sentencing scale, a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, and reduce that to 4 years’ imprisonment to reflect the guilty plea.
|