HKSAR v. Shum Ka Long, Jeffrey

DCCC 598/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 598 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. I have convicted him of that offence on his acceptance of the facts.

2.Those facts show that the offence was committed on 15 April 2016, when the defendant was subjected to a stop and search in Tsing Yi.  Upon search, a total of six plastic bags containing the dangerous drugs were found, and they were found in the front pocket of his jeans.

3.There was a total of 79 grammes of powder, but there were only 7.63 grammes of the narcotic ketamine.

4.Under caution, the defendant immediately said, “Ah Sir, I received HK$1,000 for delivering the ‘K chai’.  Please release me.” He later conducted a further video‑recorded interview, where he expanded upon the admission contained in his caution, confirming that he was to deliver the drugs and would receive instructions to do so.

5.He was also unemployed and addicted to both “Ice”, or methamphetamine, and ketamine.

6.The street value of this ketamine seized is $10,744.

7.The defendant’s antecedents are admitted.  He is a young man - he is aged 19 years; educated up to Secondary 2 level; unemployed at the time of his arrest; living at home with his family in Kowloon. A significant health factor is his addiction to methamphetamine and ketamine. This addiction has led him into criminality in the form of two offences of possession of dangerous drugs.  On both occasions, both in 2015 and more recently in June 2016, he was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre. Clearly, the first addiction treatment programme was unsuccessful, and he is currently undergoing the second form of treatment.  The offence that he has pleaded guilty to today was committed while he was on bail for the second offence.

8.What the defendant’s criminal history shows is a deterioration of his condition, a repetition of offences leading to the more serious offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug that he has committed recently.

9.Having said that, it would seem that all the defendant’s criminality is related to his addiction, and one hopes that if his addiction is dealt with, then he would no longer come before the criminal courts.

10.As far as sentence is concerned, the sentencing for trafficking in this drug, ketamine, is governed by a guideline sentence, and the level of sentencing is determined largely by the amount of drug that is to be trafficked.

11.This quantity of drug falls within the lowest sentencing guideline, and that is the guideline that falls between 1 to 10 grammes.  The guideline presupposes a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment, which would rise to 4 years’ imprisonment for the most serious offences.

12.Having said that, of course, the point of the guideline that the court assumes is largely governed by the quantity of the drugs concerned.  In this case, I am dealing with a quantity of drug of 7.63 grammes of ketamine, and so it will be towards the higher end of this guideline.

13.Although this offence was committed whilst on bail, it is the defendant’s first offence of trafficking, and the second factor I will also take into account is the fact that he is a young man.  He is aged only 19 years old.  His addiction prevents any other form of sentencing being contemplated, but it is a relevant factor when determining the starting point for sentence.

14.In this case, I adopt a starting point for sentence of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, which is 39 months’ imprisonment.  The only mitigating factor present in this case is the defendant’s plea of guilty.  The defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount for that factor.

15.This will lead to a final sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment for this offence.