HKSAR v. Cheung Sau Ling

DCCC957/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 957 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you were convicted upon your guilty plea of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.In sentencing I have taken into consideration the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the nature and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, your background, mitigation made on your behalf and have had regard to sentencing precedents.

3.The facts you admitted are straightforward and may be summarised as follows.

4.At about 1 am on 7 July 2011, you were stopped by police officers on a street in Mongkok.  Upon search one transparent resealable plastic bag containing 56.76 grammes of a solid containing 24.24 grammes of ketamine was found inside the handbag carried by you.

5.Under caution you admitted to be delivering the drug for a man called Ah Ho for a reward of $500.  The estimated street value of the dangerous drug was about $6,400.

6.I was told that you are now 23 years of age. Being a single child in the family you were living with your mother who is suffering from depression.  You began to work after having received education at Form 5 level.  You told me in your letter that you had worked in a hairdressing salon and worked as a salesperson in a shop and a receptionist in a mahjong house. You earned about $10,000 a month for your last job and you were the sole breadwinner of the family. 

7.You said in your letter that since health condition of your mother has been deteriorating you were eager to earn quick money so that better treatment could be provided to her.  It was in these circumstances that you were lured to commit the present offence. 

8.You are not a first time offender but it is the first time you were convicted of the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Your only previous conviction was in relation to possession of dangerous drug which took place in 2007 for which you were fined.  I was informed that you abuse ketamine. 

9.According to the guideline in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the tariff for conviction after trial of conviction in 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment. 

10.In all the circumstances, I do not consider there exist strong reasons not to follow the tariff suggested in that case.  Ketamine has been shown to be a prevalent drug in Hong Kong.  The harm to individuals and the community as a whole is tremendous. 

11.Although you abuse ketamine I do not consider it appropriate to consider a DATC order in view of the seriousness of the offence. Besides, there are suitable and abundant facilities in a CSD institution for you to get rid of the vice habit when you are serving the imprisonment term which will be substantial. 

12.I bear in mind what Silke V P said in R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370: that within the suggested bands factors which

the court may take into account included the profit which may reasonably be expected to be derived, the number of packets, the type of mixture containing the narcotic, the degree of involvement of the offender, his previous history of narcotic offences and matters of mitigation.

13.In all the circumstances I am of the view that a starting point of 4 years and 3 months is appropriate and sufficient to reflect the gravity of the present case.  You pleaded guilty and are therefore to entitled to a one-third discount.  For the matters said on your behalf I will give you one more month of discount.  Based on the matters aforesaid, I sentence you to 33 months’ imprisonment.