HKSAR v. SO KA CHUN

DCCC701/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 701 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The 2nd defendant in this case pleaded guilty to Charge 2, possession of a dangerous drug. He had in his possession 1.71 grammes of a powder containing 1.27 grammes of ketamine. The defendant was arrested along with the 1st defendant on 19 April this year.

2.  The 1st defendant has pleaded guilty to trafficking dangerous drug charges and has been sentenced to a total of 4 years and 4 months.

3.  On that night the police had the 1st and 2nd defendant under observation.  They watched the defendant cycle up to a house subsequently known to be the 1st defendant’s sister’s house.  The 2nd defendant was either smart or very lucky, but he did not enter this home but waited outside for the 1st defendant.  The 2nd defendant was not connected in any way to the ketamine found subsequently in this house or on the 1st defendant’s person.

4.  Charge 2 involves drugs that were subsequently found on the 2nd defendant.  Under caution he told the police that he had bought it earlier from a man in a park for a $100.  However, I note from the brief facts that the street value of this quantity of ketamine is $209. 

5.  The 2nd defendant is only 20 years old.  He has no previous drug convictions.  His only previous conviction was in August 2006 when he was sentenced to 3 years’ probation for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  I heard mitigation in full on the last occasion.  His many family members were here in court then as well as today.  They are disappointed in the 2nd defendant’s behaviour but nonetheless still support him.  The 2nd defendant, on the last occasion, also submitted a letter of mitigation expressing his remorse and determination to stay away from dangerous drugs.  He is also sorry to have disappointed his parents.  He says he has been in contact with social workers to try and find guidance to quit drugs.  He is hoping the court will give him a chance to rehabilitate.  He told the police, and it is in his antecedent, that he is a drug ketamine addict.

6.  Because of the mitigation, the drugs involved, I did, on the last occasion, call for two reports, which I have before me today, a probation officer’s report and a drug addiction treatment centre report. Their contents are very similar.  I do not intend to repeat them.  The drug addiction treatment centre concludes that the 2nd defendant is a drug dependent, is suitable for treatment, and there is a place available for him.

7.  The probation officer does not recommend probation as being a suitable course of action.  She has several reasons for this conclusion, one being the defendant has, since he was young, had very loose family discipline, has run wild, that he has lived away from home and got involved with triads.  He has repeatedly transgressed the laws since 2003, for which he was cautioned by the police twice, in 2003 and 2004.  When he was 14, in 2005, he was put on a 12 month care and protection order.  Despite this order he went on to commit the offence for which he was then put on 3 years’ probation in 2006.  That was completed in August 2009.  He has then gone on to get involved with drugs. 

8.  The 2nd defendant sought help this year, in June, at the Tung Wah Hospital Cross Centre and asked for and has been given counselling for drug problems.  Despite this counselling he very frankly told the probation officer that he took ketamine even a few days before the court hearing.  The probation officer ultimately is not convinced that the defendant has the motivation to stay away from dangerous drugs, nor will benefit from probation again.  The probation officer says, quite frankly, the defendant is in need of compulsory drug withdrawal treatment.  As I said, the drug addiction treatment centre report says the same thing. 

9.  So despite your counsel’s best endeavours I am afraid that probation is not an option.  I also conclude the defendant needs drug withdrawal treatment, and that drug addiction treatment centre is the best option.

10.  Defendant, please stand up.  For Charge 2, I will be sentencing you to drug addiction treatment centre, and there is a conviction recorded for this order.