HKSAR v. Wong Kit Ho

DCCC345/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.345 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant is 17 years old. He faces one charge of trafficking in dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134. It is alleged that the defendant on 9^th February 2010, at the rear lane of No.3B Tsing Chau Street, Hung Hom, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 10.42 grammes of a powder containing 8.36 grammes of Ketamine.

2.He pleaded guilty to the charge, admitted to the summary of facts and was duly convicted.

Summary of Facts

3.In the evening of 9^th February 2010, a party of police officers conducted an anti-dangerous drug operation in the Hung Hom area. At about 8:32pm, PW1 and another officer saw the defendant acting suspiciously as he was walking along Ma Tau Wai Road towards Tokwawan area. The defendant was intercepted and searched. One resealable plastic bag of dangerous drug was found inside his right shoe. The defendant was arrested for possession of dangerous drug. Under caution, the defendant said he was delivering the ‘perfume’ to Hoi Sum Park for a friend in return for a free meal.

4.Government Chemist confirmed the substance found on the defendant was 10.42 grammes of a powder containing 8.36 grammes of Ketamine.

5.In a video recorded interview taken later on in the same day, the defendant stated under caution, inter alia, that he came to know an unknown male whilst playing online game in a cyber café in the Sham Shui Po area in the afternoon of the same day. Later on at 7pm, the defendant met that same man again in a park in Ka Wai Chuen. He offered to treat the defendant a meal if the defendant could deliver a packet of Ketamine to a ‘tom boy’ at the basketball court of Hoi Sum Park in Hung Hom. The man told the defendant that ‘tom boy’ will pay him $50 for the meal.

6.The man then gave a packet of Ketamine to the defendant who then transferred the contents into another plastic bag and hid that in his right shoe. The man told the defendant that the packet of Ketamine was worth $1,500. The defendant knew that Ketamine was a dangerous drug but he himself was not a drug user. The defendant was intercepted by the police before he got to Hoi Sum Park.

Mitigation

7.The defendant has a clear record. He has just turned 17 years old at the time of sentence (born on 15^th May 1993). The dangerous drugs involved was just slightly over 8 grammes of Ketamine. There is no evidence that the defendant was embarking on a calculated criminal course, it was more of a case of a young person being manipulated by an experienced drug dealer. The defendant wrote a letter in his own mitigation indicating his remorse and his desire to become a better person so that he can look after his aging father, who is a single parent. Ms. Chan for the defendant submitted that this would be an appropriate case to impose a Training Centre Order.

Sentencing authorities

8.The case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng (許守城) [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, CAAR7/2006 should apply, and the indicated tariff for sentence after trial for traffickers in Ketamine is 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment for between 1 to 10 grammes of Ketamine. However, given the young age and clear record of the defendant, I called for a Detention Centre and a Training Centre report before sentencing. The defendant is found to be unsuitable for the detention centre but suitable for detention in a Training Centre. The maximum period of detention in a training centre is 3 years.

9.As the prosecution rightly pointed out, trafficking in dangerous drugs is an excepted offence, and as such, the age of the defendant may not play such an important role in his sentencing.

Sentence

10.The defendant is 17 at the time of sentence. The offence that he had pleaded guilty to is a serious offence and would have attracted a sentence of around 43 months’ imprisonment. Since he pleaded guilty to the charge, that would have resulted in the discounted sentence of around 28 months’ imprisonment.

11.Having considered the relatively young age of the defendant (although bearing in mind the guidelines sentence and the fact that we are dealing with an excepted offence), the recommendation of the officer in the Training Centre suitability report as well as the mitigation put forward on the defendant’s behalf by his counsel, I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the community and that having regard to the defendant’s character and previous conduct, and to the circumstances of the offence, it is expedient for the defendant’s reformation and for the prevention of crime that he should undergo a period of training in a training centre.

12.I will therefore order that the defendant be subject to a Training Centre Order, pursuant to s.4(1) of the Training Centres Ordinance, Cap.280.