HKSAR v. Ku Tsz Ho, Eugene

DCCC 632/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 632 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to 1 count of drug trafficking.

2.This is a simple case. The defendant was stopped and searched shortly after 1.30pm on a weekday in a public place outside a low cost housing estate in Shamshuipo of Kowloon. In his trousers pocket the police found 3 plastic bags of drugs wrapped in tissue paper. The contents were subsequently confirmed by the chemist to be 68.73 grammes of powder which contained 50.19 grammes of ketamine.

3.When cautioned, the defendant said he bought the drug in bulk because it was cheaper to buy in large quantity. He spent HK$4,100 to buy the drug from a place in Langham Place of Mongkok about 2 hours before his arrest.

4.In mitigation, the defendant frankly admitted he had been asked by a friend to deliver the drugs to a person called “Dai Fai” on the day in question. He was to collect the purchase price of HK$4,100 and he would be given HK$500 as the reward for delivering the drug.

5.The tariff for ketamine trafficking can be found in the 2008 case of Hii Siew Cheng (許守城) [2009] 1 HKLRD 1(6 June 2008). The appropriate sentence for dealing in 50 – 300 grammes of ketamine is a term of 6 to 9 years imprisonment.

6.The defendant is 18 years of age. His parents separated when the defendant was 3 years old. He was brought up by his grandmother until he was 12. He lived with his father for 3 years and was reunited with his mother for the past few years. His mother worked as a beautician while his father (who came from a well off family) worked as a tourist guide.

7.In July 2006 the defendant was given a police superintendent caution for possessing dangerous drugs when he was aged 15. A year later in 2007 the defendant was convicted of the offence of wounding contrary to s.19 of Cap 212 for which he was sentenced to probation. When the defendant was found in breach of his probation order he was sent to the Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre in Sai Kung. In September 2008 the defendant was arranged to study at Lee Shau Kee School of Creativity. On the day of the offence the defendant should have been attending classes at school.

8.Drug abuse is just too well known a social evil to require any further debate about the need for eradication. The issue is well addressed in all forms of open forum, be it at school, in television programmes or in other forms of public media. The debate about the need of drug testing in school is still very much a hot topic amongst all areas of social concern.

9.Defence counsel has presented a detailed, lengthy and touching piece of mitigation on behalf of the defendant. The defendant ought to be given some encouragement for being able to complete his 3 months rehabilitation programme in 2008 and being identified by his teachers to have some potential in certain areas of his educational spectrum such as music playing. Apart from academic performance, the more important aspect of one’s focus in life is really one’s ability to differentiate the right from the wrong. No matter how well one does at his superficial facets of life, if he undergoes illicit activities for greed or other purposes, his success at his superficial strata could not compensate the harm he brought upon the society by his illegal acts.

10.From the current social trend, the availability and drug influence had multiplied rapidly to the younger generation. Both law enforcement agents as well as educational personnel are making every effort to curb the influx of drugs and their availability. Drug traffickers are obviously those whom the court needs to impose a stern sanction to send out a clear message of what approach society would take in dealing with traffickers. I accept the defendant is no more than a ground level pusher used by the masterminds. Unfortunately, it is always the street level handlers who would be caught in the act rather than those harvesting at the back of the scene.

11.Young age is not a strong mitigating factor for drug trafficking activities. The appropriate sentence for possessing 50 grammes of ketamine for trafficking is a term of 6 years imprisonment. The strongest mitigating factors here are the defendant’s efforts in life and his frank admission in court. I do give the defendant credit for his plea of guilty indicating remorse and accord him 1/3 discount. I sentence him to a term of 4 years imprisonment instead.