HKSAR v. Hui Chung Ho

DCCC 955/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 955 OF 2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved is ketamine.

Summary of Facts

2.About 2:20 p.m. on 17 September 2015, PCs 13187 and 11567 stopped the defendant for enquiry at Exit C2, Diamond Hill MTR Station.

3.Upon search, in the left back pocket of the defendant's shorts, the police officers found 5 resealable plastic bags containing 5 resealable plastic bags which contained a total of 13.30 grammes of a powder containing 6.39 grammes of ketamine.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he trafficked the ketamine for others because he had no money.  He asked for a chance.

4.In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that on 17 September 2015, a friend named "Ah Wai" gave him 5 packets of ketamine.  He was supposed to deliver them to Ah Wai's customer(s) at Exit C of Diamond Hill MTR Station on that day. At the time of arrest, he was waiting for Ah Wai's phone call regarding the exact arrangements.  If the delivery was successful, the defendant would receive $250 as his reward.

Mitigation & Sentence

6.The defendant is now 21[1] and has a clear record.  Defence counsel Mr. POON informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his parents and elder sister.  He came to Hong Kong in 2005 together with his mother and elder sister to join his father.  He received his primary and secondary education in Hong Hong.

7.In mitigation, Mr. POON submitted that the defendant attended a Band 1 secondary school from F.1 to F.4. He transferred to another school in F.5 because he was unable to cope with the academic requirements of his previous school.  As a result, he met some undesirable peers in the new school.  The present offence took place shortly after his transfer.  The defendant foolishly committed the offence owing to his greed.

8.Mr. POON stressed that the defendant made full and frank admissions upon arrest.  He is remorseful and is determined to reform himself.  A bundle of mitigation letters and certificates earned by the defendant was placed before me; their contents are duly noted.

9.Drug abuse has always been a problem in our society, and the HKSAR is determined to fight the battle against drugs in all aspects (from education, crime detection to recovery of proceeds of drug trafficking).  A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" is a serious crime and that drug traffickers would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment even for fresh young offenders, so that there is a deterrent effect.

10.I am aware of the defendant's age and his background (including his clear record).  I accept that as a general principle, rehabilitation (rather than punishment) plays an important role in reforming young offenders.  On the other hand, in the past few years, I have seen a steady (if not increasing) number of young persons in my court being charged with "drug trafficking".  Many of them were just like the defendant – persons in their late teens or early 20s being used by others as "couriers".

11.When young people realize that the court would not treat young drug traffickers lightly, there would be, hopefully, fewer willing "couriers"; thus making it difficult for criminals to exploit our youngsters.  Unless the quantity of dangerous drugs involved is minor or exceptional circumstances exist, a wrong message would be sent to young people if they could avoid imprisonment owing to their age. Undoubtedly, most of them are "used" by bad persons (or so they claim).  That is the reason why we need to make young people think twice before they agree to be "used".

12.The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine (see  SJ v HII Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1).  For up to 10 grammes, the sentence ranges from 2 to 4 years' imprisonment.  The defendant trafficked in 6.39 grammes, the appropriate starting point is 3 years' imprisonment.  With the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years.   Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 2 years' imprisonment.