HKSAR v. Chen Kit Ling

DCCC1240/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1240 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The Charge and the Facts

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty before me to one charge of “trafficking in a dangerous drug”, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.The facts admitted by the Defendant are simple. In the evening of 1 September 2011, the police found the Defendant acting suspiciously outside a shop in a commercial complex in Shatin. He was therefore intercepted. Upon search, the drug particularized in the charge, that is, a total of 13.03 grammes of a powder containing 6.6 grammes of ketamine, was found inside the Defendant’s  trousers pocket. Under caution at the scene and during a subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted that he got the drug from an unknown male and he was on his way home. He further admitted that he intended to share the drug with his friends.   

Mitigation

3.The Defendant is aged 23 and is single. He was born in Fujian. At the age of 9, he came to settle in Hong Kong and to re-unite with his family members. The Defendant quitted school after completing Form 3. At the time of the offence, he was working in an advertising company, earning about HK$10,000 per month.

4.The Defendant has got one previous conviction of “possession of a dangerous drug”. He was put on probation for 12 months in March 2009 because of that.

5.In mitigation, it was said that as the Defendant was taken care of by his grandparents when he was young, he did not have a close tie with his own parents. After moving to Hong Kong, he did not only have difficulties communicating with his parents, but also with his schoolmates because of the sudden change in his environment. His academic performance was unsatisfactory and he then mingled with some bad peers who induced him to take drugs.

6.Mr. Ho who acted for the Defendant told the court that the Defendant is determined to turn over a new leaf and to quit his drug habit. During his remand, his father and his other family members paid him regular visits. That made the Defendant realize that he has a very supportive family. He also understands that his parents and siblings are all prepared to guide him back onto the right track.

7.Before me were letters written by the Defendant, his family members, his boss and his social worker. From the letters, it would appear that the Defendant is minded to mend his ways and to start anew. He was described as a caring and easy-going person. His boss also reported that he was a hardworking, efficient and responsible worker. They all asked for a chance to be given to the Defendant.

Sentencing Considerations

8.The court has said time and again that there is a need for deterrence when dealing with offences like trafficking in a dangerous drug and that age carries little weight in mitigation. In the case before me, although the Defendant is of a relatively young age, he is certainly not of extreme youth. He is also not a first offender.

9.In SJ v Hii Siew Cheng ＆ Another [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking over 1 gramme to 10 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years is called for.

10.In the present case, the Defendant admitted that he bought the drug for sharing with his friends. Certainly, that was trafficking. However, I accept that if the Defendant had not made full admissions, it might not have been easy to prove the case of “trafficking” against him. For that, I am going to give the Defendant some credit. Therefore, having taken into account the facts of this case and the quantity involved, I consider a starting point of 3 years and 3 months to be appropriate.

11.I also note that the Defendant was a drug addict and had a previous conviction of “possession of a dangerous drug”. In the circumstances, I am prepared to accept that when he told the police that the drug was for sharing with his friends, he meant that he would himself consume part of the drug. That being the case, I am of the view that the factor of self-consumption could be taken into account to reduce the sentence (see HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau & Anor. [2002] 1 HKLRD 69). However, a reduction of 3 months is all that it warrants in these circumstances and the starting point will be so reduced to one of 3 years.

The Sentence Imposed

12.The Defendant pleaded guilty and he will be given a one-third reduction for his plea. Apart from that, there is nothing before me which could attract any further reduction in sentence.

13.I therefore order that the Defendant is to serve a term of 2 years for this charge of “trafficking in a dangerous drug”.