HKSAR v. Wong Cheuk Yin

DCCC 746/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 746 OF 2010

____________

____________

____________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

____________________________

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in 59.56 grammes of a powder containing 48.88 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134.

2.In summary at about 21.15 hours on the 14th May this year the police intercepted the defendant as he was leaving his home.  The police searched his home and found in a box underneath the lower bunk of the bunk bed in the defendant’s bedroom five resealable plastic bags containing the ketamine, together with electronic scales, calculator and calculation sheet of drug transactions.  Under caution the defendant admitted that he intended to sell the ketamine in order to earn some money.  In a later video interview the defendant admitted, inter alia, he had been involved in drug transactions for about a month.

3.In the Secretary for Justice v HII Siew-cheng [2008] 3 HKC 325 the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for trafficking in ketamine.  Where the narcotic content is between 10 and 50 grammes sentence after trial falls within the range of 4-6 years imprisonment.  48.88 grammes of ketamine place this at the top of that range.

4.The defendant is 16 and a first offender.  Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221 provides no court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with such person is appropriate.  This provision however does not apply to an excepted offence.  I have nevertheless called for a training centre report to provide me with background information on the defendant, warning the defendant that even if training centre was recommended this did not mean I was going to sentence the defendant to detention in a training centre.  The appeal courts have made clear that save in very rare cases a training centre order should not be imposed for trafficking in substantial quantities of dangerous drugs (see Secretary for Justice v KO Fei-tat [2002] 4 HKC 59). 

5.The report details how at school the defendant mixed with triad related peers which led to behavioural problems at school and temptation into taking drugs.  The defendant failed form 4 and had to move schools in order to enrol in form 5.  The defendant’s behaviour did not improve and under the influence of his triad peers he started to engage in drug peddling activities in early April this year. 

6.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said by Mr Wong.  I take into account the defendant is still young, although not of extreme youth and has a clear record. 

7.The defendant says he does not wish to go to training centre.        Although a period of comprehensive disciplinary training is said to be beneficial to the defendant’s rehabilitation I am satisfied this is not one of those very rare cases where training centre would be appropriate.  Although the defendant is young he was willing to sell dangerous drugs in order to earn fast money to sustain his lifestyle.  For the reasons given in the Secretary for Justice v HII Siew-cheng I am satisfied a deterrent sentence is required.

8.Taking all these matters into account I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial for 48.88 grammes of ketamine is six years imprisonment.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is sentenced to four years imprisonment.