HKSAR v. LI HIN FUNG

DCCC1072/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1072 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely, 39.85 grammes of a powder containing 30.36 grammes of ketamine.

Facts of the Case

2.  The police mounted an anti-dangerous-drugs operation at Amoy Garden, Jordan Valley North Road, Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon. At about 0300 hours, the police intercepted the defendant when he was seen lurking about outside Ground Floor, Block P, Amoy Gardens. During a body search, a cigarette box containing two packets of powders, which were the drugs in question, were found inside the right front pocket of the defendant’s jeans. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he delivered ketamine for others to Amoy Gardens.

3.  In a video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he agreed to deliver the drugs to Amoy Gardens for a reward of $300 because he was short of money, and he has not received any remuneration at the time of his arrest.

4.  The defendant has a clear record. In mitigation, I am told that the defendant was 17 years of age at the time of committing the present offence. He was short of money as he needed money to celebrate his birthday, which was two days away at the time of his arrest. He did not approach his father for money because he knew that his father had a difficult job as a driver, and money did not come along easily for him. The defendant dropped out from school at Form 3. Although he attended the Vocational Training Centre for a course, he quitted the course after six months. He then started to work as delivery workers, kitchen workers and the like, and he was unemployed at the time of his offence. The defendant himself is a drug addict.

5.  In his own letter, he knows now that he has committed a very serious offence. At that time, he did not know that the consequence would be so serious. He is now remorseful. The defendant’s parents were separated when he was 3 years old. Prior to his remand in custody, he lived with his father and stepmother. His stepmother also wrote to this court that she treated the defendant as her own son. She would continue to support him. His father’s letter said that Defendant was looked after by his grandparents since he separated from his ex-wife. The father has to work hard to keep up with the family expenses, and therefore the defendant and his father have very little time to communicate to each other. However, he still cares very much about the defendant. The defendant’s father, stepmother, aunties, grandfather are all in court today to demonstrate their support to the defendant.

6.  I have been asked by the defence to call for various reports such as rehabilitation centre report, training centre report, detention centre report before sentencing the defendant because the defendant has now pleaded guilty to the charge, he has a clear record, and more importantly, he is only 18 years of age.

7.  In Ko Fei Tat [2002] 4 HKC 59, the Court of Appeal held that mitigating factors such as age, disabilities which for less serious offence would lead to a discount but little weight in such a serious offence. Against this background, I refuse to call for any such report as training centre order, detention centre or rehabilitation centre order are totally inappropriate sentence to be passed for such a serious offence. It is not only manifestly inadequate but also wrong in principle. A message needs to be sent to the public that for those who commit this type of offence should be expected to be sentenced by the court to imprisonment.

8.  According to the guideline in Hui Siew Cheng CAAR 7/2006, the quantity of the present case involved falls into the sentencing bracket of 4 to 6 years. When I pass sentence on the defendant, I have taken into account of all the mitigating factors and his guilty plea. I take a starting point of 5 years, reduced to 40 months to reflect his guilty plea.