HKSAR v. Cheung Ka Yun

DCCC884/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 884 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 80.01 grammes of a powder containing 58.38 grammes of ketamine.

The facts of the case

2.At 2 am on 2 June 2009, two police officers were patrolling at a staircase and saw the defendant retrieving a white plastic bag behind a water pipe. Upon a body search, one plastic bag containing six resealable plastic bags that containing the drugs in question was found inside the defendant’s right rear jeans pocket.

3.Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was asked by Ah Kwong to deliver the drugs to Yau Tong for a reward of $200.

4.The defendant has a clear record.

Mitigation

5.The defendant is now 17 years of age, lives with his parents and two sisters. He was used by Ah Kwong to deliver the drugs to Yau Tong, but he has not yet received the $200. And in his own written letter, the defendant is now remorseful.

6.In mitigation I was also asked to treat the defendant leniently because the defendant has a clear record and he is only 17 years of age. I call a background report which tells me more about the defendant. The defendant dropped out from school in November 2008 as he was not motivated to continue his studies. The defendant started to take ketamine in his Form 3 which was about in 2007 to 2008.

7.Since the defendant dropped out from school, he sometimes returned to the school to wait for the lower form students. There was a drug consumption incident in the school. It has been alleged that the defendant provided the drugs in that incident. It was clear that the defendant had been under the influence of his bad peers. At the same time his parents had no control over him; he simply turned a deaf ear to them.

8.The defendant is aware that drug trafficking was illegal, but he was so naive to believe that it was not a serious crime and the punishment was not harsh, this information was revealed in the background report.

9.In the case of HKSAR v Ko Fei Tat [2002] 4 HKC, the court says that:

“Mitigating factors such as age and disability, which  for less serious offence could lead to a discount, had little weight in such serious offences.  Save in very rare cases, a training centre order for trafficking in substantial quantity of dangerous drugs was not appropriate.”

10.No doubt the defendant has committed a very serious offence. Drug problems among the younger generation are getting more and more serious nowadays. A message is needed to send out to the public that for those who commit this type of offence will be expected to be sentenced by the courts severely because a sentence of deterrence and punishment is necessary. In accordance to the case of Hii Siew Cheng CAAR 7/2006 that the quantity in the present case falls into the sentencing bracket of 6 to 9 years.

11.Against this background, with the mitigating factor in mind and the quantity involved, I adopt a starting point of 6 years, reduced to 4 years to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea.