HKSAR v. Yeung Wai Ho, Henry

DCCC877/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 877 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant was convicted after trial of Charge 1. He had pleaded guilty to Charge 2 on the first day of trial. I do not intend to repeat the evidence of this case. I gave full details in my verdict.

2.The defence did not challenge the prosecution’s evidence, but ultimately I rejected the defendant’s attempt to distance himself from seven out of eight packets of ketamine found in his pocket.  I rejected the possibility that someone put seven packets in his pocket without his knowledge because he was at the time under the influence of drugs.     

3.The defendant is not a man of clear record.  He has two previous convictions, both related to possession of dangerous drugs. The previous convictions were in 2008 and 2010 respectively, and for the last conviction the defendant was sentenced to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.    

4.The defendant’s background I have been made aware of.  He is now 27 and did attend his formative years of education in a boarding school in the United Kingdom.  He returned to Hong Kong and since his return has worked in various professions and jobs.    

5.I have been told that he was introduced to cannabis in the UK and when he returned to Hong Kong became addicted to ketamine.

6.The defendant is the youngest of three siblings and his parents are both serving police officers who must be most disappointed. 

7.Guidelines exist where trafficking ketamine is concerned and I have referred to the authority of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR7/2006.  The relevant guideline which applies here is where there is between 50 and 300 grammes of ketamine trafficked, a starting point of between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.    

8.In Charge 1, the total amount of pure ketamine is 79.8 grammes.  Mathematically speaking, if one strictly applied the guidelines, that quantity would attract a 6 years and 3 months’ starting point.

9.Defence counsel has asked me to take into account that part of the ketamine would have very likely been for the defendant’s self-consumption because he was an addict of ketamine and under the influence at the time of the offence. 

10.I have referred myself to the authority of HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69, in particular pages 69J to 70H.  After reviewing that authority, I do not find a significant part of the dangerous drugs would be for self-consumption and therefore will not take it into account in sentencing.     

11.Defendant, please stand up. 

12.I do take into account mitigation, facts of the case, quantity of the dangerous drugs, and for Charge 1, I will take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.  You were convicted after trial.  There is no reason for a discount to that starting point. 

Charge 1

13.I sentence you to 6 years’ imprisonment.

Charge 2

14.I sentence you to 3 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to Charge 1, a total of 6 years’ imprisonment. 

Please refer to CACC533/2011 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.