HKSAR v. Leung Wai Sing
|
DCCC1245/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1245 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.Defendant you pleaded guilty to two offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs, each contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134. 2.You are admitted the brief facts and I convicted you. 3.The prosecution case was as follows. At about 0305 hours on 11 September 2010, PC5050 (PW1) saw you getting out of taxi at Kak Tin Street, Tai Wai. Being suspicious, he stopped and searched you. The search revealed a transparent plastic bag containing 10 smaller plastic bags of white powder from the front left pocket of your trousers. 4.You were arrested and cautioned. You admitted the substance was “K Chai” which you had bought earlier from a man for $2,000. You claimed it was for your own use. In your possession there were two mobile phones; HK$1,660 and US$1. 5.With your consent your residence at Room 711, 7th Floor, Lung Shing House, Lower Wong Tai Sin Estate was searched. In the locked drawers of your bed the following items were found:
6.Under further arrest and caution for trafficking, you said the substance was “K-Chai” left over from previous consumption and you could not recall when you had put it in the drawers. 7.Subsequent analysis showed that on your person was found 13.36 grammes of a powder containing 3.01 grammes of ketamine and 52.75 grammes of a powder containing 9.56 grammes of ketamine at your premises. 8.The total weight of ketamine seized was 12.57 grammes. The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs is approximately $7,338.You are young man of hitherto clear record. In view of that clear record and your age I called for a probation officer’s background report. That report is now before me and accepted by yourself. 9.I have taken the contents fully into account when deciding the sentence to be imposed. 10.On your behalf Mr Surman entered mitigation. He referred to your youth, been only 18, and the lack of family guidance which in the past had led to the present situation. That is referred to in the report and I do not intend to dwell upon that, but I can assure you I do take it into account. Mr Surman informed me that your family were now present, they were here to show support, and perhaps a little belatedly. 11.The factors in mitigation included your plea of guilty, your very high level of cooperation with the police and also your youth. He told me that in Pik Uk you had been well-behaved anddeferentialtowards the officers. On your behalf he asked me for leniency. 12.I turn now to the sentence. Trafficking in dangerous drugs is both prevalent and serious. You are a young man of hitherto clear record. However, I have to say that youth is of relatively minor mitigation. To regard it as such would encourage those higher up the ladder of criminality to use younger and younger persons. 13.I taken into account the mitigation advanced, the facts of the case and the contents of the probation officer’s report, which is generally supported. Also, I note your cooperation; the total weight of narcotics was 12.57 grammes. Whilst there are two offences, for the purposes of sentence I have based my sentence on that amount. 14.To reflect your co-operation, your clear record and your youth, I have decided to take the very bottom of the tariff, this amount of narcotic being in the range of 4 to 6 years. 15.Therefore, in Charge 1, I take a starting point of 2 years reduced to 16 months for your plea of guilty; on Charge 2, a starting point of 4 years reduced to 32 months for your plea of guilty. These will be served concurrently and making a total period of 32 months.
|