HKSAR v. Cheung Siu Hang

DCCC 61/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 61 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in 99.72 grammes of ketamine.

2.On 10 November 2012 at 0345 hours the police intercepted the defendant outside Kwai Chung Bus Estate Terminus in Kwai Chung. In the right front pocket of his jacket they found 21 plastic bags containing the drugs the subject of the charge.  The defendant told the police that at about 4.00 pm the previous day he met an unknown man who asked the defendant to sell ketamine to earn some money, and he agreed for a reward of $500 per day.  At the time of his arrest he had $700 in cash with him.  The value of the drugs was $14,627. 

3.The defendant has a clear record, he is 18 years of age and was born in China and came to Hong Kong in 2003. 

4.On a previous occasion I adjourned the case so that I could have the advantage of a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Services with a view to the defendant’s suitability for detention in a training centre.  I have read that report.

5.The report refers to the defendant coming to Hong Kong for a family reunion when he was about 8 years old.  It said he had behaved well in his childhood, although his academic performance slightly dropped in late primaries.  Sadly, his parents divorced when he was studying Form 1, and without proper supervision he could not catch up with the school curriculum in secondary school and his academic performance deteriorated.  In Form 3 he started working as a warehouse worker to earn pocket money, and he dropped out after completing Form 3. 

6.In early 2012 he moved to live with his mother, but she was busy in work engagement and could not render him close supervision. In mid-2012 he became jobless and mixed with some people who dealt with drugs and had a triad background and he started to sell ketamine to earn easy money.

7.The report concludes that the defendant is mentally and physically fit for detention in a training centre.  From the information available, and after general assessment, it was the opinion of the officer that his behaviour and attitude whilst on remand rendered him suitable for detention in a centre. 

8.In view of the defendant’s age and his clear record, and also in view of the very strong mitigating features that have been placed before the court in this case, what I propose to do is follow the recommendation in the report and order that the defendant be detained in a training centre.