HKSAR v. Lau Ken Hei
|
DCCC229/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 229 OF 2010 --------------------
--------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. 2.In the afternoon of 8 January 2010, a team of police officers conducted an anti-drug operation in Tuen Mun area. At 1537 hours, one of the police officers intercepted the Defendant in San Wai Court, Tuen Mun. Upon search, 6 packets of white substance were found inside the Defendant’s trousers pocket. Under caution, the Defendant admitted that he intended to sell the “K Chai” to make some money for living. 3.In a subsequent video recorded interview, the Defendant admitted that he had no money to spend and was seeking to find a job. On the day of the offence, one of his friends made a suggestion to him to sell ketamine to make profits. He agreed to buy six packets of ketamine at $7,000 from this friend. As suggested by his friend, he intended to sell each packet at $2,000, therefore making a profit of $5,000 in total. He went with the friend to Leung King Estate where the friend brought him ketamine. When he was on his way home, he was caught by the police. 4.Government Chemist certified the 6 packets of white substance to be a total of 158.82 grammes of powder containing 79.08 grammes of ketamine. 5.The Defendant is aged 18. He has one previous criminal conviction of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2008, and he was sentenced for probation for 12 months and to pay compensation of $500. 6.As the Defendant is only 18 years of age, I have called for background, Detention Centre and Training Centre reports before sentencing the Defendant. The contents of the reports are unremarkable. Due to inadequate parental supervision, the Defendant mixed with some bad peers who might have some triad connection. The Defendant was an under-achiever in school. He quitted school without completing Form 3 education, and he enrolled for a brief time at the Youth College of the Vocational Training Centre. 7.After committing the assault occasioning actual body harm in 2008, he attended a 3-year diploma course in electrical engineering at the Vocational Training Centre. Prior to the arrest, he worked as a part-time plumbing and electrical worker. Since 2007, the Defendant was under the professional guidance from the youth outreaching social worker who commended the Defendant for his volunteer service. Unfortunately, after serving the probation order of 12 months, the Defendant went astray and mixed with the bad peers again. Although the Defendant was not a habitual drug abuser, he occasionally consumed dangerous drugs. Worse still, he was tempted by his friend to sell ketamine to make fast money. 8.Sentencing a young man for such kind of offence is not always easy for the court, but trafficking in ketamine is a very serious offence. In particular, Hong Kong is now facing a serious problem of drug abuse by teenagers. If the drug trafficker is also a teenager, it would be more so easy to influence other teenagers to consume the drug. The court should therefore send a clear message that such kind of offence will not be tolerated in the future, even if the Defendant is also a teenager himself. 9.As I have told the Defendant before calling for reports, the norm should be a term of immediate custodial sentence and I am afraid that there is nothing in the reports which justifies a departure from such norm. 10.According to the tariff in the landmark case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKRD 1, trafficking in ketamine in the region of 50 to 300 grammes would attract a sentence in the region of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. As 79.08 grammes of ketamine was involved in the present case, I adopt a starting point of 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. Giving the Defendant a one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is reduced to 50 months’ imprisonment.
|