HKSAR v. Wong Tze Tzen, Vicky and Another

DCCC816/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 816 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendants have pleaded guilty to charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The 1st defendant, who is now 18 years of age, pleaded guilty to trafficking in 20.8 grammes of ketamine. The 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in 78.6 grammes of ketamine.

2.The offences were committed on 27 and 28 April this year.  Police officers were on duty in Shanghai Street and Hamilton Street.  They saw the 1st defendant walking along Shanghai Street.  He was acting furtively and looking around him.  He was stopped.  He looked around and then quickly entered a building, and the police officers followed the 1st defendant and they saw him enter the premises on the 4th floor of the building.

3.At 2252, the defendant left those premises and the officers intercepted him at the staircase between the ground floor and the 1st floor of the building.  He was searched and the drugs, the subject of the charge, were found in his possession and at the time he claimed they were for his own consumption.  He was taken to Yau Ma Tei Police Station.

4.At 0120 hours, the officers who had remained at the premises saw the defendant leaving the premises in Shanghai Street.  They stopped and intercepted the defendant who ran back into the room.  When the police officers entered their room, they saw the 2nd defendant and a female.  An officer searched the room and found the drugs, the subject of the 2nd charge, inside a TV game machine.

5.The defendant was arrested, and under caution, he admitted that they were for safekeeping.  He said he was keeping them for somebody else and his reward was $500 per day.  He claimed that the lady who was with him had no knowledge of the drugs.

6.In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the 2nd defendant claimed that he had got the drugs from the 1st defendant and he further claimed that it was the 1st defendant who had paid him $500 per day for safekeeping the drugs.  The estimated value of the drugs was that the drugs, the subject of the 1st charge, were valued at $3,258, and the drugs, the subject of the 2nd charge, valued at $13,185.

7.The 1st defendant has a clear record.  The 2nd defendant has got eight previous court appearances.  His last court appearance was in 2009 when for possession of dangerous drugs he was fined $2,000.

8.I was told in mitigation that the 1st defendant is now 18 years of age.  He lives with his mother, elder brother and sister.  His mother is 51 years of age.  She is a housewife and has suffered from chronic depression.  His elder brother works as a casual renovation worker earning some $5,000 per month.  His sister has just completed Form 7 education.  The family relies upon social security allowance.  I was told that his parents were divorced when he was 3.  His father is now aged 50. He was working as a full-time bus driver earning some $11,000 per month, but he has now changed to part-time work in order to give greater attention to the 1st defendant and he now earns some $5,000 per month. 

9.I was told that when he was aged 8, the defendant was diagnosed with ADHD.  When he was 14, his mother suffered serious depression and was admitted to Castle Peak Hospital.  At that time, the defendant was admitted to the St Christopher’s Home for Boys and he stayed there for two years.  His formal education was completed in Form 3 and he then spent two years at the IVE College.  I was told that since September 2009, he has worked in a hair salon as a junior worker and also part-time at a vegetable store.  And after this incident in April, the defendant was detained in Pik Uk for some eight days.  I was told that that gave him time to reflect and he is very remorseful for his involvement in this matter.  I was told that the effect of his detention for this offence had an impact on his family, and his family members all visited him, and he was gratified by the family support that was shown, particularly his father putting up the bail money.

10.A number of letters have been placed before the court from the defendant himself, his parents, an employer and a social worker, and they all comment that the defendant has been a hard worker since leaving school, and they ask for leniency.

11.The 2nd defendant has also placed before the court two letters, one from himself and the other from his girlfriend asking for leniency.  I was told that his parents were divorced and he was brought up by his grandmother, and after Form 3 education, he visited his grandmother even after he had moved out of the family home and was living with his girlfriend.  I was asked to deal with the defendant leniently.

12.These offences are serious.  Trafficking in ketamine particularly in Hong Kong is a huge social problem.  Because of that, the Court of Appeal have laid down some very stiff guidelines for sentencing in connection with trafficking in ketamine.  For the amount in which the 1st defendant was found to be trafficking, the usual sentence is 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.  The 2nd defendant, the quantity of trafficking, the guidelines state that the sentences should range between 6 and 9 years. 

13.Nothing has been placed before me that shows that I should depart from the guidelines.  The 1st defendant is a young man but youth other than extreme youth is not a reason for departing from the guidelines.  I therefore have decided in the case of the 1st defendant to take a starting point at the lowest end of the scale.  I take a starting point of 4 years and impose a sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment. 

14.As regards the 2nd defendant, I take a starting point of 6 years.  I take into account his guilty plea, and he shall go to prison for 4 years.