HKSAR v. CHENG KEI WAI

DCCC 978/ 2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.978 OF 2010

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, admitted to the summary of facts and was duly convicted.

Facts

2.  The defendant was stopped and found to be in possession of the charged ketamine. Under caution he admitted that he was delivering them for someone in return for a monetary reward of $2,000.

Previous

3.  The defendant has 2 previous records, both are drug related.

Mitigation

4.  A background report was called for before sentencing. The defendant disputes paragraph 3 of the report which says that the defendant started trafficking drug in October 2008. It was submitted that the defendant meant to say he started to take drugs in 2008. It was then pointed out to counsel that the probation officer must have made up the following sentence where it is alleged that the defendant told the officer that he would receive a reward between 300-2000 for the deliveries depending on the quality and quantity of the drugs. In any event, I did not take into consideration this part of the report when deciding on the sentence.

5.  Mr. Lee submitted that this is the defendant’s first trafficking conviction. He is remorseful. The defendant came from a complicated family, with his mother going through two unhappy marriages.

6.  The defendant further claimed that because of the long hours that his mother had to work as a manager in an insurance company, the defendant had lots of unsupervised free time and so he hung out with the wrong friends. The defendant knows he will be spending long time in sentence. He hopes to join his father to work in Indonesia. Mr. Lee conceded that even he did not see any mitigation factors save for the fact that the defendant pleaded guilty. It was finally submitted that because of the defendant’s young age, his simple mindedness and lack of love and affection in the family, the court should impose a minimum sentence.

Sentencing guidelines

7.  For trafficking in Ketamine, the sentencing guidelines in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng (許守城) [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, CAAR7/2006 apply:

“95. We indicate the following tariffs for sentence after trial for traffickers in ketamine and ecstasy:

…

(3) 10 to 50 grammes – 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment;”

Sentence

8.  The defendant is 21 years old. This is arguably a relatively young age. Yet, for the purpose of sentencing in a trafficking in dangerous drugs case, he does not fall into the extreme youth category and as such his age itself would not per se be a mitigating factor.

9.  I have read the background report and heard from Mr. Lee the defendant’s plea in mitigation but I find that there is nothing that would allow me to depart from the sentencing guidelines. It must be noted that the weight of the powder that the defendant had agreed to deliver was 1,031.09g, which is a very substantial amount, yet the defendant still dared to agree to make the delivery in order to earn some quick money.

10.  The defendant is a 21 year old adult, he knew clearly what he was getting himself into when he agreed to make the delivery for a reward. It is this kind of young people that the drug dealers most like to exploit. The court will continue to send out the message to possible targets that even for a first offender and even if the delivery was done for a modest reward, the courier will still face the full force of the law and the guidelines will be adhered to regardless.

11.  I will adopt a starting point of 48 months’ imprisonment, granting the defendant the full one third discount for his guilty plea and reduce it to 32 months’ imprisonment.