HKSAR v. Ng Chi Keung

DCCC1159/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1159 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to three counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely ketamine (Charges 1, 2 and 4).  Upon the application of the prosecution, Charge 3, which relates to the offence of claiming to be a member of a triad society, is to be left in the court file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court.

2.In early April 2009, a woman police officer posed as a Form 3 student in a secondary school in Fan Ling.  She came to know students who were drug abusers.  In June 2009, the undercover police officer came to know the Defendant and she knew that the Defendant was a drug trafficker.

3.Charge 1 relates to an incident on 26 June 2009.  The undercover police officer paid $200 marked money to the Defendant who gave one packet of ketamine to the officer.  The transaction took place outside Shek Wu Hui Market in Sheung Shui.  Upon examination, the packet was found to contain 1.42 grammes of a powder containing 0.87 grammes of ketamine.

4.Charge 2 relates to an incident on 30 June 2009.  This time, the police officer gave $300 for one packet of ketamine.  The transaction again took place outside the said Shek Wu Hui Market.  Upon examination, the drug was found to contain 2.68 grammes of a powder containing 1.84 grammes of ketamine.

5.Charge 4 relates to an incident on 5 August 2009.  This time, the police officer paid $900 of marked money to the Defendant for a bag of ketamine, and the transaction took place outside a MacDonald’s Restaurant in Sheung Shui.  When the transaction was completed, the police officers intercepted the Defendant who was found to be in possession of the marked money.  The drug supplied by the Defendant was later found to contain 6.23 grammes of a powder containing 4.99 grammes of ketamine.

6.The Defendant was arrested and, under caution, the Defendant said he only wanted to earn some money.  Subsequently, three cautioned interviews were conducted with the Defendant, during which he admitted that he had sold ketamine to the undercover police officer for a reward.  However, he refused to disclose the source of the drug.

7.The Defendant is aged 19.  He has received education up to Secondary 5 level, and he has no previous working experience.  He pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a dangerous drug on 28 August 2009, and he has already served his sentence in the DATC.

8.Trafficking in dangerous drug is a very serious offence.  In particular, the Defendant was supplying ketamine to young persons who, by reason of their immaturity, may not be able to make a clear judgment as to what is right and what is wrong.  Despite the background of the Defendant, immediate custodial sentence is the only option.

9.According to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, trafficking of ketamine in the amount between 1 to 10 grammes would attract a sentence in the region of 2 to 4 years.  Trafficking in the amount up to 1 gramme would be within the discretion of the sentencing judge.

10.About 1 gramme of ketamine was involved in Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment.  Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is reduced to 16 months’ imprisonment.  1.84 grammes of ketamine was involved in Charge 2, I adopt the same starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment.  Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is reduced to 16 months’ imprisonment.  About 5 grammes of ketamine was involved in Charge 4, I adopt a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment.  Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is reduced to 22 months’ imprisonment.

11.The present case did not involve a one-off incident.  The Defendant committed a series of offences all on different dates.  The sentence should in principle run consecutively.  However, taking into account the totality principle, I order 6 months of the sentence in Charge 2 to run consecutive to the sentence in Charge 1 and 10 months of the sentence in Charge 4 to run consecutive to the other sentences, making a total of 32 months’ imprisonment.

12.It must be emphasised that supplying drugs to a young person is a serious offence.  The court has power to increase the sentence under section 56A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance if there is evidence to show that the commission of the drug offence involved the supply of drug to a minor.  I agree that there is not sufficient evidence before the court to apply section 56A in the present case.  However, in the future, the court will have no hesitation in increasing the sentence if there is sufficient evidence before the court to that effect.  And this is the sentence I impose in the present case.