HKSAR v. Zhang Hong Yu

DCCC 474/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 474 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to Charge 1 and Charge 2.

2.On the afternoon of 15 February 2015, on the staircase of 11th Floor, No 578, Nathan Road, Kowloon, police officers stopped the defendant and conducted a search on him.  Five packets of ketamine were found inside the defendant’s right front trousers pocket.  The defendant was arrested and, under caution, he admitted that he was working for someone to conduct delivery of the ketamine (Charge 1).

3.On the same day, the police conducted a search in Room A, 11th Floor, No 578 of Nathan Road, Kowloon (“the Room”).  A key to the room was found on the defendant.  Upon search of the room, 26 packets of ketamine and paraphernalia for packaging were found (Charge 2).

4.The defendant was further arrested and, under caution, he admitted that he was working for a male known as “Ah Keung” to conduct delivery of the ketamine in Charges 1 and 2.  All the packaging tools were provided by Ah Keung.  He had no way of contacting Ah Keung.

5.The drugs in Charge 1 contained a total of 34.6 grammes of a powder containing a total of 20.4 grammes of ketamine.  The drugs in Charge 2 contained 209.9 grammes of a powder containing 103.2 grammes of ketamine.

6.At the relevant time, the average retail value of the drugs in Charge 1 would cost about $4,100 and the drugs in Charge 2 cost about $25,000.

7.The defendant is aged 17 years and 10 months.  He has a clear record.

8.In mitigation, Mr Chan, solicitor for the defendant, informed the court that the defendant was born in the Mainland.  He migrated to Hong Kong at the age of 11.  His parents were divorced when he was only 5.  His mother was remarried to his stepfather. 

9.The defendant developed behavioural problem when he was in secondary school and he quitted studies last year. Through the arrangement of his stepfather, he secured a job in a dispensary. However, he found the job too hard and quitted after a few months.  To earn easy money, he engaged in drug trafficking under the instruction of Ah Keung.

10.The defendant is not a drug addict.

11.It is submitted that the defendant was only a tool of the trafficker.  He is now remorseful.

12.Mr Chan asks the court to consider a detention order in a training institution of the Correctional Services Department for the rehabilitation of the defendant.

13.I have declined to call for suitability reports of detention in these institutions, as I find that a detention order is not appropriate in the circumstances of the present case.

14.The courts have repeatedly emphasised that drug trafficking is an evil business.  Whoever carries on this evil business can expect no mercy.  No doubt young age is often a mitigating factor.

15.The court must take great care before sentencing young offenders to prison.  However, in serious drug trafficking offences, public interest requires the deterrence of other potential offenders to take precedence over rehabilitation of the particular young offender.

16.The present case is a serious drug trafficking case.  The quantity of dangerous drugs in this case is 123.6 grammes of ketamine.  According to the sentencing guideline in The Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323, the starting point for an adult trafficker mathematically would be around 82 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant’s relative young ages pales into insignificance because of the magnitude of the offences he had committed.

17.I do not see any exceptional circumstances in this case to justify a sentence other than imprisonment.  See Secretary for Justice v Chau Tsz Tim, CAAR 4/2014.

18.The drugs in both charges were found in the defendant’s possession on the same day at near locations.  I would regard the two offences as representing one occasion of possession of the total amount of drugs and impose sentences on both offences for that total, making the sentences concurrent with one another.

19.Bearing in mind the relative young age and clear record of the defendant, I would take 75 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.

20.In clarification, Mr Chan confirms that he is not relying on the contact phone number of the trafficker given by the defendant as a mitigating factor.  Indeed, I would not accept that the defendant has provided useful information to justify any reduction in the sentence.

21.I will give the defendant the full one-third discount for his plea of guilty.

22.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment on both charges, with the sentences to run concurrently.