HKSAR v. Lee Tsz Ho

DCCC302/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.302 OF 2011

________________________________________

________________________________________

Reasons for Sentence

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, admitted to the amended summary of facts and was duly convicted.

Facts

2.The defendant is 17 years old. The defendant was intercepted outside a premises in Wong Tai Sin by Police officers conducting an anti-dangerous drugs operation. 7 plastic bags with the suspected ketamine were found in the right front pocket of the defendant’s jacket. The defendant had HK$1,600 cash and a mobile phone on him.

3.The defendant was arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs and cautioned. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was delivering the ketamine to Tse Wan Shan to earn some money.

4.In a subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant further admitted that he came to know a man named Ah Keung 1-2 years ago. It was Ah Keung who had given him the ketamine in question and asked the defendant to deliver them to Tse Wan Shan for $300. The defendant was on his way when he was intercepted.

Mitigation

5.The defendant has just passed his 17th birthday, being born on 3^rd May 1994. He was 16 at the time of the offence. He came to Hong Kong with his mother when he was 8. His father is currently unemployed but used to work as a casual worker on construction sites. The defendant’s mother is a housewife. The defendant is an only child with no siblings.

6.At the time of the offence, the defendant was a form 4 student in Wong Tai Sin. He lives with his family.

7.The defendant came to know Ah Keung 1-2 years ago. On 16^th February 2011, they met again and Ah Kueng promised him $300 to make the delivery. The next day, the defendant was supposed to go to Tsz Wan Shan and to wait for Ah Keung to tell him where to bring the drugs.

8.The defendant has a clear record, pleaded guilty to the offence and is remorseful. The legal representative for the defendant asked the court to consider imposing a Training Centre Order.

Sentence

9.The defendant has a clear record. He has just turned 17 years old at the time of sentence (born on 3^rd May 1994).

10.As Ms Chan for the defendant correctly pointed out, the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng (許守城) [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, CAAR7/2006 applies, and the indicated tariff for sentence after trial for traffickers in Ketamine is 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment for between 10 to 50 grammes of Ketamine.

11.17 years old is a relatively young age. Yet, for the purpose of sentencing in a trafficking in dangerous drugs case, the defendant does not fall into the extreme youth category and as such his age itself would not per se be a mitigating factor.

12.I have heard from Ms. Chan the defendant’s plea in mitigation but I find that there is nothing that would allow me to depart from the sentencing guidelines. I have taken into consideration Ms. Chan’s suggestion to call for a Training Centre report but I find that it would be wrong in principle to impose such an order because of the seriousness of the offence.

13.Although the defendant was 16 years old at the time he committed the offence, he knew clearly what he was getting himself into when he agreed to make the delivery for a reward. I am well aware of the clear record and the seemingly good background of the defendant as gleaned from the letters submitted in mitigation. It is however exactly this kind of young people that the drug dealers most like to exploit.

14.The court will need to continue to send out the message to possible targets of those drug dealers that even for a first offender and even if the delivery was done for a modest reward, the courier will still face the full force of the law and the sentencing guidelines will be adhered to regardless.

15.I will adopt an initial starting point of 57 months’ imprisonment, reducing it by 6 months in reflection of the defendant’s relatively young age and his clear record, and then granting the defendant the full one-third discount for his guilty plea and reduce it to 34 months’ imprisonment.