HKSAR v. Hui Yat Kuen, Henderson

DCCC575/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 575 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant revealed that in the evening of 10 April 2010, he retrieved 11 resealable plastic bags containing a total of 143.09 grammes of a powder containing 120.96 grammes of ketamine, which was the drug particularized in the charge, one electronic scale and a number of empty resealable plastic bags from the roof top of a cubicle inside the male toilet in Whampoa Garden. However, as the police had been laying ambush in the adjacent cubicles, the door of the defendant’s cubicle was kicked open. Upon the police revealing their identity, the defendant became emotional and bumped his head against the wall of the cubicle. Eventually, the defendant was subdued and arrested. Under caution, the defendant asked the police officers to give him a chance and stated that he engaged in selling ketamine as he was unemployed. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant gave further details about how he got to hide the drugs in the compartment on the roof top of the cubicle and how he managed to have sold some of the drugs at the Game Station of Whampoa Garden.

3.The defendant was born in 1988 and is now aged 21. He is single and prior to his arrest, he lived with his mother and elder brother. He has been before the Court on 3 previous occasions for committing offences including behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place, obstructing a police officer, possession of offensive weapon, and possession of a dangerous drug. A community service order has been imposed in the past and he has been sent to the Rehabilitation Centre. The Court was informed that on 3 August 2010, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 3 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years in respect of his possession of a dangerous drug offence which he committed before the present offence.

4.In mitigation, it was said that the defendant came from a broken family and he stopped schooling without completing Form 2. He then took up various casual jobs but since September 2009, he has been unemployed. Mr. Cheung for the defendant told the Court that as the defendant was a ketamine consumer, he committed this offence in order to get some cheap drug. Two letters written by the defendant himself and by his mother were handed up to the Court. In the letter, the defendant stated that he was persuaded by his dubious peers to commit the offence in order to earn some quick money. He is, however, now remorseful and asks for a lenient sentence. The mother’s letter relates her determination to supervise the defendant and to guide him back onto the right track.

5.In SJ V Hii Siew Cheng ＆Anor. [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking between 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of between 6 and 9 years is called for. In the present case, the ketamine involved is 120.96 grammes. For this quantity and given that the defendant committed this offence whilst on bail in respect of his earlier possession of a dangerous drug offence, I consider a starting point of 7 years to be appropriate.

6.I have considered all the matters put in mitigation for the defendant, the most powerful mitigation, as correctly put by Mr. Cheung for the defendant, is the defendant’s plea. He is going to receive 1/3 reduction for that. Apart from his plea, there is nothing which warrants any further reduction in the sentence. Although the defendant received a suspended term in August this year, however, as the commission of the present offence was before the suspended term was imposed, I am not going to consider the activation of the suspended term.

7.The term of 7 years reduced by one-third is 56 months’ imprisonment and this is the term the defendant is going to serve in respect of the present charge.