HKSAR v. Liu Jiajing

DCCC 922/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 922 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, which involves an admission that he was unlawfully trafficking in a narcotic content of 15.36 grammes of ketamine.

2.The defendant has agreed the facts of this case, which are straightforward.  The offence occurred on 12 July 2016.  The defendant was stopped by police outside the MTR in Clearwater Bay.  He was seen to be acting suspiciously.  He was carrying a purple plastic bag.  A total of seven resealable transparent plastic bags containing the ketamine was found inside the plastic bag.

3.The defendant said immediately that it was “K Chai”.  He said a male in Mong Kok gave it to him for the purpose of selling.

4.The defendant was in possession of some $5,800‑odd and a mobile phone at the time.  The defendant was subsequently subjected to a video-recorded interview in which he expanded upon the admissions he had already made at the time of his arrest.

5.Essentially, he had been approached by somebody who wanted to ask him if he wanted to make quick money, and that was by way of trafficking in ketamine.  He was simply to take the drugs to the Choi Hung MTR Station and wait for it to be collected there.

6.As far as the defendant himself is concerned, he is only aged 19, and he has no previous convictions.  He is of clear record. Because of these factors and the defendant’s age, I sought further reports on him, namely a report to see if he was suitable for some form of rehabilitative training, namely the training centre programme offered by the Correctional Services Department, and I also sought a background report upon him.

7.The summary from the background report was the defendant was brought up in a traditional family, with a distant family relationship.  In Hong Kong he only attained Form 2 education, after which he associated with what are described as dubious friends.  The defendant joined a triad society as well.  He was unable to maintain stable employment.  He committed the present offence because of financial problems, and told the probation officer he was deeply regretful.

8.The training centre report is in similar terms. In the social inquiry they elucidate the defendant was born in fact in Hui Zhou in China and emigrated into Hong Kong.  The defendant’s decline appears to have started at school.  He joined a triad society.  After leaving school, he continued to associate with his triad society peers and became delinquent.  The defendant is described as co‑operative, with a weak law‑abiding concept.  He only now realises the serious consequences of committing this particular offence.

9.The conclusion for the report is that the defendant would benefit from a period of disciplinary training and is of an age where that would be of some use to him.

10.I now consider the appropriate sentence for the defendant.  The defendant has been convicted of a serious offence.  Trafficking in any drug is serious, but trafficking in the drug of ketamine is, naturally, taken seriously by the courts, and it has been frequently said that the young age of a defendant does not necessarily mean that an approach other than an immediate custodial sentence would be appropriate.

11.The determination of the starting point for sentence in trafficking in dangerous drugs is largely determined by what are guideline sentences.

12.In this case, the court is dealing with a total of 15.36 grammes of ketamine.  The guideline sentence says that for trafficking in a quantity between 10 and 50 grammes of ketamine, the defendant can expect a sentence of between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

13.Taking it objectively, the defendant is of clear record to this date, so he could expect to be at the lowest point of that guideline sentence, which would be 4 years’ imprisonment.

14.He of course is and will be entitled to a deduction of one‑third from that sentence as a result of his plea of guilty, and of course the court cannot ignore the fact that he would also be entitled, on sentencing, to remission on that sentence of a further third.  That of course must be contrasted, or the likely outcome of sentencing must be contrasted with the benefits that would accrue to the defendant and the community from him being subjected to a training centre programme.  A training centre programme can lead to detention of up to 15 to 18 months as a minimum, so it is a substantial sentence to be served.  Of course, when one adds in the time the defendant has already spent awaiting sentencing in this case, it would mean the defendant, if he is sentenced to that form of training, would have served a substantial period of imprisonment in any event.

15.I consider that the community and the defendant would be better served by the defendant being sentenced to the training centre programme.  He clearly would benefit from it, and if he benefits from it, it would mean that it is likely that he would not reoffend, which would of course benefit the community.

16.I also consider the defendant is within that range of sentencing where this kind of sentence can be considered to be appropriate.

17.For those reasons, what I shall do today is order the defendant be sentenced to training centre for this offence.