HKSAR v. LI KUEN HO

DCCC 962/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 962 OF 2015

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The 2nd defendant, Li Kuen Ho, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of possession of a dangerous drug (Charge 2).  

2.  The offence took place on the first day of June 2015 at the staircase between ground floor and the 1st floor of No 74-76 Nga Tsin Wai Road, Kowloon City.  It concerned 13.72 grammes of a powder containing 11.36 grammes of ketamine and traces of a powder containing ketamine.

3.  On the day in question, at around 5:52 pm, the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant in this case were seen acting suspiciously inside a rear lane facing Nga Tsin Wai Road.  The two defendants subsequently walked out of the rear lane and walked in opposite directions.  They were intercepted by police officers.  The 2nd defendant was taken to the staircase in question and was searched. 

4.  The ketamine in question was found in the possession of the defendant.  Under caution, the defendant told the police that the ketamine was sold to him in the rear lane just now, and the ketamine was for self-consumption. 

5.  The 2nd defendant had two previous convictions recorded against him, both drugs-related.  In 2009, the 2nd defendant was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug and he was put on probation for 12 months.  On 19 October last year, the 2nd defendant was again convicted of possession of a dangerous drug and he was sentenced to be detained at a drug addiction treatment centre.

6.  I called for a drug addiction treatment centre report before sentence.  The report sets out in detail the background information and the addiction history of the 2nd defendant. Mr Fung urges me to adopt the recommendation of the report, which says that the 2nd defendant is considered suitable to continue with the treatment programme in the centre.  He was in fact sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre on 19 October 2015 in case KTCC 3457/2015 for possession of a dangerous drug.  Mr Fung told me the defendant wants to kick off the bad habit.  The family members of the 2nd defendant are in court today to show their support for the 2nd defendant.

7.  In sentencing the 2nd defendant, I have borne in mind the quantity of the ketamine involved, the facts of this case, the background information of the 2nd defendant as set out in the drug addiction treatment centre report and all the matters urged on the 2nd defendant by Mr Fung today.

8.  Mr Lam, the intake officer, says in the ultimate paragraph of the report that the defendant is still a drug dependent.  He is considered suitable to continue with the treatment programme in the centre under a fresh detention order. 

9.  As the defendant is still a drug dependent, I do not want to disturb his treatment at the drug addiction treatment centre.  I will follow the recommendation and make a fresh detention order.  On the 2nd charge, I sentence the 2nd defendant to be detained at a drug detention treatment centre, and the conviction should be recorded.