HKSAR v. CHU KWOK HUNG

DCCC387/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 387 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of a dangerous drug and that is a total of 22.55 grammes of ketamine. He is only 17 years old.

2.  On 17 February the defendant was intercepted at Mongkok MTR Station. Drugs were found in his possession along with over 2,000, almost $3,000, and he asked for a chance. He said he bought the drugs for about $1,500.

3.  The prosecution in this case, as was the court, were content that the defendant pleaded guilty to possession of these drugs.

4.  He is of course very young. And in the course of investigating the defendant’s antecedents, I obtained two reports. Between 2006 and 2008, the defendant has been on probation for various offences, common assault, assault with intent to rob, robbery and also for breaching of the probation orders.

5.  The report was obtained from the probation officer. They concluded that the defendant was brought up in a family with inconsistent parental discipline. He went wayward after entering secondary school in 2005 and was involved in fighting incidents and eventually placed on probation for 24 months. He spent 8 months in a probation home. Eventually he went to a special school and a student hostel but broke the rules there.

6.  Now, the probation officer said the defendant picked the habit of taking party drugs. This led to his present offence. He told the probation officer he had stopped taking drugs for about half a year. Now, what happened was that the urine test showed the presence of codeine and methamphetamine, and a conclusion was drawn that probation disposal for this defendant was certainly not appropriate any more.

7.  Now, I obtained a series of reports from the Correctional Services Department investigating the defendant’s suitability for training and also for drug addiction treatment centre training. The Correctional Services Department considered the defendant for all the institutions that they have, and I have a report from them. Now, the report in terms of the history is in very similar terms to the conclusions of the probation officer’s report. The conclusion notes that the defendant joined the triad society and relapsed to taking dangerous drugs, and this led to the present offence.

8.  The Correctional Services say that in the interests of his rehabilitation a period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision is considered beneficial. Now, despite the fact of the presence of drugs in the defendant’s urine, the Correctional Services medical officer has carefully observed and examined the defendant, in his opinion that he is not a drug dependent. So he can say with confidence that the defendant’s use of drugs is not serious enough to warrant his receiving drug addiction treatment at this stage. They consider he is not suitable for admission to a drug addiction treatment centre.

9.  He is mentally and physically fit for detention in a detention centre, a rehabilitation centre or a training centre. From the information available, after a general assessment to his behaviour and attitude while on remand, I consider him more suitable for detention in a detention centre.

10.  Now, the fact showed that the defendant was found in possession of quite a large amount of ketamine. However, he is still a very young man, he is only 17 and the courts can still look at, in his case, rehabilitation as being the most important factor in sentencing. Now, at the range of institutions that the Correctional Services Department have, they identify that detention centre as being the most suitable for this defendant. And it is clearly their consideration that the form of disciplinary training and supervision that he would receive there would be the best way of ensuring his rehabilitation.

11.  Having read all the reports about the defendant, I find that I am in agreement with the officer from the Correctional Services Department who makes that recommendation. And that being the case, I will make that order. Yes, detention centre.