HKSAR v. Leung Chi Ho

DCCC 245/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 245 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant pleads guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The drugs involved were 54.49 grammes of a solid containing 46.14 grammes of ketamine.

2.The facts are as follows.

3.In the early hours on 5 January 2013, police officers saw the defendant acting suspiciously in a Yuen Long street after midnight.  An officer stopped and searched the defendant.  He found four bags of ketamine, dangerous drugs, in his pocket.

4.Under caution, the defendant said he bought these four packets of drugs; he planned to consume them slowly by himself. This time he bought that much because he wanted to sell some to others to earn money.  The defendant said he was short of money then and this is the first time he had ever dealt in trafficking.

5.The defendant was brought back to the police station, where he was further interviewed.  He told police that he bought the drugs from one Ah Wai for $2,400 in Yuen Long on the night before.  He then went to an internet café.  When he left the café he was arrested by police. The defendant admitted that he wanted to sell the drugs in the bars in Yuen Long and Tin Shui Wai area to earn money but he had not sold any drugs yet.  He also told police that he was an addict of ketamine already for 2 to 3 years, spending $2,000-odd on the drug each month.

6.The four bags of drugs were 54.49 grammes of a solid containing 46.14 grammes of ketamine.  Its street value was $6,400-odd.

7.When he was arrested the defendant had three mobile phones in his possession.  He also had $1,400-odd and 31 renminbi.

8.In court, the defendant first admitted that all the drugs were for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, but later he told the assessment officer in the Correctional Services Department that he wanted to sell part of the drugs while retaining part for his own consumption.  Defence counsel in court confirms the latter saying was in fact the case but the defendant admitted that he wanted to sell most of the drugs to others while retaining a minor quantity for his own use.

9.The defendant was born on 19 August 1992.  When he committed the present offence in January this year he was 20, he is still 20 now.  He has a clear record.

10.In mitigation, counsel says the defendant came from a broken family, his parents divorced when he was only aged 7.  The defendant has been living with his father and elder sister.  He lacked supervision and failed to complete Form 1.  He had done different jobs but failed to hold on to one.  Counsel said the defendant was not good in human relationships and he was easily influenced by others.  This time he was talked into trafficking by undesirable peers. 

11.Counsel submits letters from the defendant, some of his relatives and the social worker.  As a whole, they say the defendant is not wicked by nature, he was only led astray by bad peers.  All plead leniency for the defendant.  The defendant himself expresses remorsefulness.

12.The social worker, Mr Leung, says in his letter that the defendant lacks aspirations in life and he is ill-equipped for proper employment.  For the present offence, the defendant wanted to earn quick money in order to move away from home to live with some friends. 

13.Counsel rightly mentions the sentence tariffs set down by the Court of Appeal in Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR 6/2007.  For trafficking in ketamine of more than 10 grammes to 50 grammes in purity, the starting point is 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment normally.  The pure ketamine in question is 46.14 grammes, so the starting point is somewhere near 6 years. After one-third discount, the imprisonment I need to impose upon the defendant is one of nearly 4 years. 

14.However, the defendant is still young.  While he deserves to be punished, he is also in need of reform.  It is fortunate for him that he was caught before he could fall deeper into the dark pit of life. 

15.If training centre is suitable for the defendant that might be the right sentence to be passed on him.  Normal training centre detention plus the statutory supervision following is a long enough sentence to match the severity of the present offence.  The detention can be up to 3 years.  Of course, an inmate of good behaviour can be discharged earlier, but in any event, it will be followed by a period of 3 years’ supervision.  The defendant can be recalled to the training centre if he behaves unsatisfactorily. 

16.Training centre is a comprehensive disciplinary training.  Inmates can take up academic or vocational studies there.  I am sure if a training centre sentence is open to the defendant it will serve the defendant and the society better.  I thus called for a training centre report before sentence. 

17.The report is now available.  It details the defendant’s background and his delinquent problems.  The assessment officers concludes that a period of disciplinary training with a period of statutory supervision would be beneficial to the defendant.

18.Counsel says the defendant now agrees to go to training centre.  Counsel cites the case of Attorney General v Fong Ming Yuen, CAAR 18/1988, to support the saying that even in a case as severe as this a training centre sentence is still an open option. 

19.The report mentions that the defendant had an outstanding triad-related matter but I was told in court that that had already been dealt with by way of binding-over in February this year, so the remaining matter is only the present case and I have to decide whether I should send the defendant to prison for a number of years or I should send him to training centre for him to rehabilitate.

20.The case of Hii Siew Cheng has laid down clear sentencing tariffs but the tariff is not a straightjacket. 

21.The defendant is young and has a clear record. However, the present offence is serious.  It is not wrong to send the defendant to prison for the present offence on a term in accordance with the tariff, but it would be more right to give him a chance to rehabilitate himself.

22.In all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that a training centre sentence would bring more good to the defendant, his family and the society as a whole rather than sending him to prison to sit there wastefully for years.  I thus make the order that the defendant be sent to training centre for the present offence.  I hope he can reflect on his past misdeeds and he can formulate a plan for himself for the future of his life.