HKSAR v. Wan Chun Kit

DCCC644/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 644 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to an offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. You admitted that on 6 February 2012, you trafficked in 25.75 grammes of powder containing 18.10 grammes of ketamine.

2.The facts are straightforward.  On 6 February at about 4.45 pm, police officers saw you acting furtively in the lift lobby of the ground floor of Yiu Chung House, Yiu On Estate, Ma On Shan.  They then approached you to intercept you and revealed their identify, however you suddenly ran away.  They got hold of you and asked you where you were going. You told them you were going to the 27th floor to find a friend.  However, you failed to provide your friend’s name and address.  You were subsequently searched and the drugs as stated in the charge were found upon you in two transparent resealable plastic bags.  At this juncture you again tried to escape but you were quickly subdued by the officer.  You then admitted under caution that you were asked by an ‘Ah Yiu’ to deliver the drugs to the 27th floor of Yiu Chung House and you would be paid $100.  The estimated street value of the drugs in question here is $2,781. 

3.You are now 18 years of age.  At the time of commission of the offence you were 17.  You are a boy of clear record and you are not a drug addict. 

4.Prior to sentencing you I called for a Training Centre report.  I shall not repeat the contents of the report.  Your counsel, Mr Chan, has mitigated on your behalf and has urged me to impose a Training Centre order upon you. 

5.I recognise, and so does Mr Chan, that the sentencing for trafficking in dangerous drugs is one of an immediate sentence of imprisonment and the Court of Appeal has laid down tariffs and guidelines for trafficking in ketamine.  Those are clearly laid down in the case of Hii Siew Cheng.  I am also aware that young age and youth is not an exceptional circumstance not to sentence a person to imprisonment.  I bear in mind that I have to consider the principles and balance the need for rehabilitation and deterrence and prevention.  Rehabilitation, in my view, for an offender is an important consideration. 

6.In your instance, defendant, you have been quite an undisciplined child in view of the fact that your mother did not impose strict supervision upon you.  Your father left the family when you were a young boy and since then your mother has also suffered from a long term of mental illness.  You have therefore not had proper parental or adult guidance. In view of this, you associated with wayward and undesirable peers and despite your mother trying to assist you by sending you to a special school for social development, this did not have any significant effect on you.  You continued to lead an unregulated life and continued to mingle with your undesirable peers.  From mid-2011 you became unemployed.  However, in view of your unemployment you were then influenced to commit this very serious offence.

7.If you were an adult, defendant, you would have received a sentence of imprisonment of approximately 4 years starting point after trial.  Giving you full credit for your plea, that sentence would have been reduced to 2 years 8 months’ imprisonment.  I am of the view that a period of disciplinary training covered with the statutory supervision would be more beneficial to you than serving this sentence of imprisonment.  In any event, the terms of imprisonment or Training Centre to which you will serve will be much the same.  In those circumstances, defendant, in the interests of the community and yourself and for you to have a better insight into your problems and to strengthen your law-abiding mindset, I consider a period of comprehensive disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision would be beneficial to you.

8.In the circumstances, defendant, you shall be sentenced to Training Centre.