HKSAR v. Tai Ka Wai

DCCC915/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 915 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The charge

1.The defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to a count of possession of dangerous drugs, namely 29.21 grammes of a powder containing 22.62 grammes of ketamine under section 8(1) (a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

The facts

2.The facts of the case are summarized as follows.  At about 1925 hours on 1 June 2010, police officers were patrolling the staircase area of Heng Tsui House, Fu Heng Estate in Tai Po.  When they were on the 19th floor, they saw the defendant putting his right hand into the fire hose reel whilst talking to two men.  Shortly, he was seen holding a substance which was white in colour.  Upon search, the defendant was found to be in possession of four transparent plastic bags which contained 29.21 grammes of a powder containing 22.62 grammes of ketamine and cash of about $1,137.  There was nothing illegal found on the two men. 

3.Under caution, the defendant claimed that the substance was ketamine and that it was for his own consumption.  He stated that the two men had no knowledge of what he was doing and were simply accompanying him to the location. 

The defendant’s background and mitigation

4.The defendant is 19 years old and has a clear record.  He received education up to Form 4 and remained idle after leaving school for over half a year.  He then commenced his working life in March 2009 as a lorry attendant.  In May 2010 he became a computer salesman earning $6,000 per month but quitted his job in December 2010.  He lived with his parents and his elder brother who are people of industrious and decent background.

5.Parental supervision became loose when the defendant’s mother started to join the workforce to augment the family income. Soonest the defendant adopted a loose lifestyle while mingling with some undesirable peers in his secondary school.  He took no heed of his parents’ advice.  In mid 2006 the defendant started to consume dangerous drugs under the temptation of triad peers.  Due to unsatisfactory academic performance, the defendant quitted school in mid 2008.  He took cannabis, ketamine and “Ice”. He sniffed ketamine two to three times a week, eventually he landed himself in the current offence.  He claimed that the ketamine in question was purchased from a friend for $1,600. 

6.Whilst on bail, the defendant did not show deep reflection.  Not only he kept taking drugs but continued to have close association with the triad peers.  His last dosage of drugs was in December 2010.  The defendant appeared to be co-operative in disclosing his triad linkage, outside merriment and drug taking behaviour.  But he showed remorse superficially to the interviewing officer of the Correctional Services Department.

7.The defendant claimed that he realized the gravity of the charge and had learned a bitter lesson during the remand.  He expressed his wish to withdraw from taking drugs in future and was willing to be sentenced to an addiction treatment centre.

8.The defendant’s father was disappointed with him but still wished that the defendant could turn over a new leaf in future.  He promised to render the defendant full support for his rehabilitation.

9.By virtue of section 4 of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance, Cap. 244, a report of the CSD on the defendant’s suitability for cure and rehabilitation at the addiction treatment centre was obtained.  It was the medical officer’s opinion that the defendant was a drug dependant, a period of drug abstinence treatment was considered beneficial to his rehabilitation.  Hence, the defendant was considered suitable for admission to a drug addiction treatment centre. 

10.In the circumstances of the case and having regard to the defendant’s character and previous conduct, it would seem that it is in the interest of the defendant and the public that the defendant should undergo a period of cure and rehabilitation in a drug treatment centre. 

11.By virtue of section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, and having taken into consideration to all the circumstances of the case and of the defendant, nature of the offence, his guilty plea, the quantity of drugs found on him, mitigation advanced by his counsel and the recommendation suggested by the medical officer of the CSD, this court views that the most appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant would be a DATC order.  Hence, this court would order a DATC order with conviction recorded.