HKSAR v. Ng Zi Jin, Alistair
|
DCCC489/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 489 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, laid against him under section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134. 2.The facts to which he agrees are as follows. On the afternoon of 29th March 2011, the defendant was observed to be behaving in a furtive manner in a football field of a public housing estate in Tai Po. A police officer intercepted him for enquiry and found in the right, front pocket of his jeans 22 packets containing 18.18 grammes of a substance, subsequently confirmed to have 14.06 grammes of ketamine in it. 3.By entering a plea of guilty to the charge, the defendant admits possessing the ketamine for purposes of dealing with it unlawfully rather than consuming it himself. 4.The court finds the defendant guilty as charged. He has a previous similar record of trafficking in a dangerous drug, for which he was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment. 5.In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration. The defendant was born in Scotland and is now 20 years old. His father is an engineer and his mother a housewife. They have had high hopes of the defendant and they love him dearly. They blame themselves for a wrong method of teaching their only son, which caused animosity against them and their advice. The defence submits that the defendant has exceptional talents to be a successful footballer and has had no financial needs. It is submitted that he committed the offence due to immaturity and playfulness and influence of dubious peers. The defendant has written a letter to the court to express determination to turn a new leaf. 6.In relation to the dangerous drugs seized in this case, the defence submission is that part of the dangerous drugs was for the defendant’s own consumption. On the day in question, he was appointed to purchase the dangerous drugs for himself and for his friends. Discussion 7.Drug abuse plagues the society. It ruins families and breeds serious crimes, ad hoc and organised. It racks a person’s life, often beyond hope and repair. Even for those who have successfully fought and overcome their addiction, their personalities and emotional make-up are in most cases marred for life, employment opportunities for them are very often limited, and prospects of their reintegration into the society are grim. What often awaits drug addicts and ex-drug addicts is extreme poverty over sustained periods and a life without esteem. In terms of social costs and loss, the society suffers immeasurably. The duty is upon the court to play its part in the fight against drug-trade, to see to it that no one would be in any doubt that the society does not tolerate criminal conduct involving drug deals. 8.Turning to the particular dangerous drug with which the court is concerned: ketamine. It is a psychotropic substance often used by drug abusers in conjunction with alcohol or other dangerous drugs, and is well-known for its hallucinogenic effects. The abuse of ketamine causes impairment of the cognitive function, in worse cases, making the abusers liable to drown, to fall from height, and to cause car accidents. Medical experts have found a correlation between ketamine and kidney dysfunction and shrunken bladder effect. Sociologists have opined that among places where ketamine was abused, Hong Kong appeared to be worse, and that ketamine hit our younger generation, particularly those under 21. Academics have pointed out that ketamine caused amnesia and could be used to facilitate sexual assaults by hampering the victims’ memory of what happened. The abuse of ketamine has in recent years become rampant in Hong Kong. 9.The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guideline for trafficking in ketamine. For the amount of ketamine the defendant was found to have trafficked in, the appropriate sentencing range is one of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment. There is no special circumstance in the instant case to justify a departure from the guideline. 10.The court has considered the defence submission that part of the drugs was to be used by the defendant himself. As against that, the court takes note of the defendant’s previous record, namely, a conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment and the fact that he has committed the current offence very much soon after he was released from prison. The defendant must be well- aware of the serious consequence of committing further crimes. Apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, none of his personal and family circumstances would warrant any further reduction in sentence. In the defendant’s circumstances, a starting point in excess of 4 years might very well be appropriate in view of the defendant’s previous record and the fact that he has committed this offence shortly after he was released from prison. However, the court has also to take into account the defence submission that part of the drugs was intended to be used by the defendant himself. Conclusion 11.In the result, the appropriate starting point is one of 4 years’ imprisonment, which is reduced by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea to one of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 12.The defendant is sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months.
|