HKSAR v. Tsui Ka Leong

DCCC1227/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1227 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

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

2.The facts admitted by the Defendant which formed the basis of this charge are relatively simple. On 29 August 2010, the Defendant was seen by the police to have acted furtively outside the Urban Council Centenary Garden, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon. When the Defendant was intercepted and searched, one sealed tinfoil bag containing the drug particularized in the charge, that is, a total of 207.17 grammes of a powder containing 129.21 grammes of ketamine, was found inside the Defendant’s rucksack. Under caution, the Defendant admitted that as he had no work to do, he delivered the “K Chai” for others in order to earn HK$2,000. The same admission was repeated in the subsequent video-recorded interview the Defendant had with the police.

3.The Defendant was born on 5.1.1991 and is now 19 years and 11 months old. He is single and he lived with his family members prior to his arrest. The Defendant was educated up to Form 2 level and he had been unemployed for a number of years since he had left school in 2003. However, between March 2008 and June 2010, he worked as a kitchen worker. At the time of his commission of the present offence, he was again unemployed.

4.Despite the Defendant’s relative young age, he has been before the court on three previous occasions with four convictions, two of those concerned triad-related offences, one related to “assault occasioning actual bodily harm” and the most recent one being “aiding and abetting others to escape from lawful custody”. He was given a probation order on all the previous occasions but the order was discharged when he was sentenced to a term of 4 months’ imprisonment on 14 October 2010 for the “aiding and abetting” offence. The court was informed that the Defendant committed the “aiding and abetting” offence in March this year and he was then put on bail. Whilst he was on bail, the Defendant then committed the present drug offence in August 2010.

5.In mitigation, it was said that the Defendant has got no similar conviction before and he committed the present offence in order to earn more money for his family as he has a grandfather who has a long history of illness and his father is only a casual transportation worker. Further, it was said that the Defendant is now remorseful and he has pleaded guilty. Letters from the Defendant and from his younger sister begging for leniency were given to the court.

6.The Court has said time and again that there is a need for deterrence when dealing with offences like trafficking in a dangerous drug and that age carries little weight in mitigation (see e.g. R v Lau Tak-ming & Ors. [1990] 2 HKLR 370; SJ v Ko Fei-tat [2002] 4 HKC 59).

7.The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine was laid down in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng ＆ Another [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. For a quantity of between 50 and 300 grammes of ketamine, a period of imprisonment of between 6 and 9 years is called for.

8.The Defendant was more than 19½ years old at the time when he committed the present offence. He is not a person of extreme youth. In this case, the ketamine involved was of a substantial quantity. Further, on the facts which he admitted, the Defendant voluntarily got himself engaged in the drug business by acting as the courier. He committed the offence for the monetary reward he was going to get. In doing so, the Defendant had clearly paid no regard to the harm such drug trade would cause to the community. Worse still, the Defendant committed this offence when he was on bail in relation to another offence and when he was still subject to the probation order which was imposed in February this year for the offence of “AOABH”.

9.I have considered all the matters urged upon me in mitigation but, other than the Defendant’s plea, I see no other reason to have the Defendant’s sentence reduced.

10.Given that the Defendant committed the present offence whilst on bail and given the quantity of the ketamine involved, that is, 129.21 grammes of ketamine, I consider a starting point of 7 years to be appropriate. As I have indicated, the Defendant pleaded guilty and he will be given a 1/3 reduction in the sentence.

11.7 years reduced by 1/3 is a term of 56 months’ imprisonment and this is the term the Defendant is going to serve for this offence. Considering the totality principle, I order that this term of 56 months which I now impose is to be served wholly concurrently with the term which the Defendant is now serving.