HKSAR v. Tsang Hin Cheung, Adrian

DCCC 993/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 993 OF 2010

____________

____________

Reasons for Sentence

1.The Defendant has pleaded guilty before me to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 34.95 grammes of a powder containing 28.68 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

2.The facts admitted by the Defendant reveal that on 26^th June 2010, police officers were conducting an anti-dangerous drugs operation in the area of No. 104 Main Street, Ap Lei Chau, Aberdeen. At about 0755 hours on 26^th June 2010, he was intercepted by 2 police officers at the staircase of 5^th floor, No. 104 Main Street, Ap Lei Chau, Aberdeen. Upon search, 3 plastic bags containing the dangerous drugs the subject matter of the charge, 37 resealable plastic bags, 2 plastic spoons and 1 electronic scale were found from his right front trouser pocket. The Defendant was arrested and cautioned, and under caution he admitted that it was his first time and asked for a chance. In the subsequent video record of interview, he admitted that the dangerous drugs in question was ketamine, and that it was his first time selling the drugs and he was just trying to earn some money. He had purchased the dangerous drugs from an unknown male in Yuen Long and he planned to repack and resell the dangerous drugs. At the time of his arrest, he had on him HK$2,200 in cash. The street value of the said dangerous drugs was estimated to be HK$4,124.

3.The Defendant is aged 31 years. He left school after Form 3 and joined the work-force. He worked at various jobs. At the time of his arrest, he was a driver earning $10,000 a month. He is married with 2 young children, a daughter aged 9 years and a son aged 6years, both of whom are in school. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. He committed the present offence to earn some extra money.

4.In mitigation, it was said that the Defendant is truly remorseful and is determined to turn over a new leaf. A lenient sentence is therefore sought. The Defendant himself has written a letter to express his remorse, as have his wife and parents, who are all here today in Court to show their support for the Defendant. The Defendant’s parents have described the Defendant as a filial son and a responsible husband and father. His wife has also described him as a responsible husband and loving father. In their letters, they all say that the Defendant is now very remorseful and seek leniency on his behalf.

5.This is not the Defendant’s first conviction. He has three previous convictions, two of which are for possession of dangerous drugs, the most recent being on 19^th November 2009, when he was sentenced to the DATC. I note from the antecedent statement that he was only released from the DATC on 19^th March 2010. The present offence was committed soon after his release from the DATC. The Defendant explained in his letter that he succumbed to the inducement of his friend to sell the drugs because of his difficulty in finding steady work after his release from the DATC.

6.Save for his plea of guilty, there is really little else in mitigation before me.

7.In the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng & Anor. [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of between 4 to 6 years is called for.

8.In the instant case, the ketamine involved is 28.68 grammes. For this quantity, I consider a starting point of 5 years, that is 60 months, to be appropriate. The court has said time and again that there is a need for deterrence when dealing with offences like trafficking in a dangerous drug.

9.In the present case, the matters urged upon me cannot detract from the fact that a deterrent sentence is called for as our society needs to get the message that trafficking in a dangerous drug is a very serious offence. The only mitigation which is of use here is the Defendant’s plea, and for that, he will be given a one-third discount.

10.Therefore the starting point of 60 months will be reduced to a term of 40 months. The Defendant is sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment.