HKSAR v. Tsang Siu Ngau

DCCC 1338/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1338 OF 2011

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

BETWEEN

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

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charge

1.The defendant was charged with and convicted of, after trial, a count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 180 grammes of a powder containing 50 grammes of ketamine, such offence was contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

The Facts

2.On 11 October 2011, the defendant was seen wandering at the 3/F corridor of Multifield Plaza, Nos. 3-7 Prat Avenue, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon by the police.

3.He was then intercepted and searched by the police.  Upon search, 14 small packets of white powder containing 180 gm of a powder containing 50 gm of ketamine were found inside the right front pocket of the defendant’s sports trousers.

4.The defendant was arrested for the offence of Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug.  Under caution, the defendant said he had nothing to say.

5.Amongst other things, 37 small transparent re-sealable plastic bags and an electronic scale with battery were found from the defendant’s shoulder bag carried by him.

Sentencing guidelines

6.The Court of Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng CAAR 7/2006 laid down sentencing tariffs for trafficking in ketamine after trial.  For 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine, 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment is called for.  For 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment is warranted.

Other considerations

7.The defendant, aged 22, has a clear record.  He was a kitchen worker earning $7,000 per month.  The good character of the defendant would have minimal relevance in offence of this nature. The accused in HKSAR v Bugaay [2008] 6 HKC 326, was convicted of drug trafficking.  Stuart Moore VP said:

“The couriers who are selected by international drug syndicates to carry drugs of the value in the present case, almost invariably have no criminal record. Part of their usefulness to the syndicate is that they are able to pass as normal, law-abiding passengers whatever their age group. In any event, as this court has so often said with reference to cases where serious criminal acts are concerned, a clear record (or good character) in itself is not a factor for which a discount is generally appropriate and age will usually be relevant only where extreme youth is concerned.”

8.Drug traffficking is a prevalent offence and a deterrent sentence is always called for.  The defendant is 22 years old, he is young but was not of extreme youth.  His previous good character could not be considered as a factor for which a discount/reduction is generally appropriate.  Hence, clear record and youth of the defendant  will not affect the starting point for sentence.  The defendant was caught red-handed and was convicted after trial.

9.Having fully considered the circumstances of the case and those of the defendant, the mitigation put forward by the defence counsel and the sentencing tariff set out by the Court of Appeal, this court will adopt a starting point of 6 years for 50 grammes of ketamine.  There is no mitigating factor in this case for any reduction in sentence.  This court now imposes 6 years’ imprisonment on the defendant.