HKSAR v. Lo Po Sum
|
DCCC1317/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO.1317 OF 2010 --------------------
--------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- The defendant was charged with Trafficking in a dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134. The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, he is convicted accordingly. Facts At round 10:15pm on 7 October 2010, the defendant was found acting furtively on board a taxi. Police approached and revealed their identity to the defendant. Thereafter they took the defendant out of the taxi; the defendant struggled and fell onto the ground accidentally. Police then subdued the defendant and searched him when he came down. Upon search, one re-sealable transparent plastic bag containing 4 re-sealable transparent plastic bags containing a total of 91.77 grammes of a powder containing 74.87 grammes of ketamine were found inside the right front pocket of the defendant’s shorts. Under caution the defendant admitted that he was to deliver the Ketamine to someone at Mega Box for his friend named “Hung Jia” for a reward of $400, but he has not received the reward yet. Mitigation The defendant aged 19, single and lives with his mother. He has 1 previous conviction and was sentenced to Rehabilitation Centre (RC)in 2008, he was released in early 2009 and completed his supervision by November 2009. The defendant used to work as a kitchen assistant but he was out of job for 3 – 4 months at time of the offence. Out of greed, he committed the present offence for easy money. He was very regret for what he did, he was not aware of the seriousness of the offence. The defence urged the court for leniency in view of his age and adopted a lower starting point. I noted the defendant informed his mother about the present case after his arrest by himself, this suggested a positive relationship with the mother. For the quantity in question, if I adopt a starting close to 6 years, taking into account of the plea and possible good behaviour the actual time spent in prison would be in the range of 36 months which is similar to the maximum training in the training centre. I noted the defendant was remanded since his arrest. In view of the age of the defendant I adjourned the case for a training center report for consideration, giving no indication as to the sentence in due course. It appears from the training center report that the defendant mingled with undesirable peers after proceeding to secondary school. In January 2007, he quitted school without completing Form Three and remained idle. As he led a wayward living attitude, he received 2 Police Superintendent Caution in April 2007, this warning signal was not taken serious enough by the mother or the defendant. The defendant failed to led a stable working life and started taking Ecstasy and Ketamine in July 2007. He got his first conviction in 2008 and was sentenced to RC. The defendant managed to behave himself after discharged from the RC, however, after the expiration of the supervision order in November 2009 he befriended with some triad-related peers and relapsed into dangerous drugs in early 2010; he started peddling drugs in mid 2010, and committed the present offence in October. With the circumstances of the present case, the background and character of the defendant, I do consider a period of institutional disciplinary training would be expedient for his reformation and prevention of crime. However, such course is not viable, as the medical officer is of the opinion that the defendant is a drug dependant, and thus unsuitable for detention in a Training Centre. According to the tariff in Hii Siew Cheng, for quantities between 50 to 300 grammes, the tariff band is 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment, the quantity in the present case would warrant a starting point of 6.5 years but in view of the age of the defendant I consider a lower starting point of 6 years would be appropriate. The defendant is entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea. And I allow a further 3 months discount for his co-operation with the Police and early indication of plea. I do not consider there to be any mitigating factor for further deduction. Order The defendant is sentenced to 45 months imprisonment.
|