HKSAR v. Chan Chak Ming
|
DCCC697/2012 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 697 OF 2012 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug contrary to section 41(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134. 2.The particulars of the offence are that on 16 May 2012, in a flat in Tuen Mun he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 131.85 grams of a powder containing 114.17 grams of ketamine. 3.The facts of the case are straightforward. Obviously acting on information the police raided this apartment in Tuen Mun at about 4.45 pm on that day. As the police entered a bedroom in that flat the police saw the defendant handling some drugs. The defendant was caught red handed. In the bedroom the police found seven plastic bags containing 10.86 grams of a powder which had 9.24 pure ketamine in it. This was on a window sill. They then found 10 plastic bags containing 121.17 grams of a powder containing 114.93 grams of ketamine. These were in a plastic box. In addition there were piles of empty plastic bags and an electronic scale. These paraphernalia are often associated with trafficking and packing drugs for the purpose of trafficking. 4.The defendant’s immediate response to the police was that the ketamine was bought for his own consumption. In a subsequent video recorded interview he elaborated and explained he had bought the drugs two days prior for $15,000. He had scales to monitor his own consumption for packing the drugs in plastic bags. He would consume about four to five grams of ketamine a day and that he would share drugs with his friends after work. 5.Defence counsel submitted that on her instructions half of the full amount would be for his own consumption and the other half he would either share or sell to his friends. Sharing with friends could be described as social trafficking but this fact does not make it less serious, nor would it attract a more lenient approach in sentencing. 6.The defendant is 20 years old, 21 next week. He is young but this is not a case of extreme youth. He has, to date, a clear record. He is supported by a loving family who are all here in court today. Both his parents and his elder sister have written letters of mitigation for the court to consider and asking for leniency. The family have explained that when the defendant was younger he was bullied at school. Perhaps this is why he is now easily influenced and wants to please others to make friends. 7.There is also a Mr Lau, a social worker, who is here from the Caritas Centre. In particular, it is the Caritas Hugs Centre which provides counselling service for young drug abusers. In a letter that he has written to the court, he explains that the defendant had sought help from this centre in August 2011. Mr Lau explains that the defendant did try and kick his drug abuse habit. He participated in not only the program but other activities that are organised. Sadly the programme offered was not successful and the defendant was arrested less than a year later with this amount of ketamine. 8.The letter explains that the family actually knew of the defendant’s drug problem and were supportive of him. Defence counsel said the defendant has dabbled in dangerous drugs since 2008. From the contents of this letter I am willing to accept the defendant was, if not an addict, certainly consumed ketamine for his own consumption. Defence counsel suggested that the court can consider part of the dangerous drugs was intended for self consumption and, as I have said, I accept he did consume ketamine. I would accept this submission. This amount and quantity of dangerous drugs will attract a custodial sentence. 9.I have considered two authorities, HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau & Anor 2002, 1 HKLRD 69 as well as HKSAR v Cheng Ching Fai CACC443 of 2005. These authorities do uphold the principle that the court can adjust a sentence to reflect that not all the drugs were for the purposes of trafficking. According to the authority of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, 2008 3 HKCA 323 there are guidelines for trafficking in dangerous drugs, ketamine. The Court of Appeal there set down guidelines where 10 to 50 grams of ketamine is trafficked a sentence of 4 to 6 years would be appropriate. The next level is where 50 to 300 grams of ketamine is trafficked, this would attract a six to nine year term of imprisonment. Therefore mathematically speaking, trafficking 50 grams of ketamine would attract a six year term of imprisonment. Where a person traffics 100 grams of ketamine this would attract a six and a half year term of imprisonment. 10.Defendant, please stand up. Having heard all the mitigation put forward today, including the letters from your family and Mr Lau, a social worker, your previous clear record, you plea today, your background, as well as the quantity of the dangerous drugs here. I will also consider the fact I have accepted the part of the dangerous drugs was for your own consumption. I will take, after consideration, a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment to reflect all those factors above. You are entitled to a discount of 2 years for your plea of guilty today. For this offence you are sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||