HKSAR v. Wong Ching Hang
|
DCCC 259/2013 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 259 OF 2013 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in 29.09 grammes of ketamine. He has also pleaded guilty to a 2nd charge of failing to surrender to custody on 12 November 2012. 2.The facts admitted by the defendant state that on 15 September 2012, at 10 o’clock in the evening, officers set up a roadblock at the junction of Canton Road and Bute Street in Mongkok. 3.At 2218 hours, one of the officers intercepted a taxi and saw the defendant sat in the offside rear passenger seat acting furtively by looking round and pressing on his left front trouser pocket. The defendant was told to get out of the taxi, and he was searched, and the drugs, the subject of the charge, were found in his left front trouser pocket. 4.He told the police that the ketamine was for his own consumption and he had bought it earlier that day from a man called Ah Fai in Cheung Sha Wan Park for $2,400. 5.On further search, the defendant was found to be in possession of $134. The street value of the ketamine was $5,254. 6.The defendant appeared before the Magistrates’ Court on 17 September, and the case was adjourned to 12 November for legal advice. The defendant failed to answer to his bail on 12 November, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He surrendered to the police on 21 February at Cheung Sha Wan Police Station. When he later appeared before the Magistrates’ Court, his bail money of $3,000 was estreated. 7.The defendant has appeared before the court previously in July of 2011. In respect of a charge of theft, the defendant was placed on probation but his performance under probation was unsatisfactory. And the defendant was originally placed on probation for 15 months. However, having had a progress report, it was extended to 18 months commencing on 11 July 2011. On 13 March 2008, for breach of probation, he was ordered to go to a rehabilitation centre. The original probation order was discharged. The defendant is currently in the rehabilitation centre. 8.When the defendant last appeared before the court, I adjourned the case so that I could have the advantage of a report from the Correctional Services as to the suitability for detaining the defendant in a training centre, and the report concludes that the defendant is suitable. The report states that the defendant was deprived of sufficient parental supervision and timely home discipline. In his early teens, the defendant turned to his friends of triad background for social gratification and went astray. Thereafter, he strongly identified himself with the delinquent subculture and was involved in drugs. The fact that he was placed on probation had no effect on his dissipated lifestyle. He turned to drug trafficking as a way of making easy money. 9.The quantity of drugs which the defendant trafficked in attracts a sentence of between 4 to 6 years. Trafficking in 29 grammes of ketamine, the appropriate sentence is a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. And the fact that the defendant is only 19 is not a mitigating factor such as to determine that a prison sentence should not be imposed. 10.I have had placed before me letters of support from the Hong Kong Christian Kun Sun Association Limited, from an organisation called Youth Outreach, and letters of support from the defendant’s parents and his former employer. All these letters are extremely supportive and indicate that when the defendant is eventually released from whatever sentence I impose that he will have support. He is very fortunate. I have the greatest sympathy for his parents. 11.Trafficking in drugs is a very serious offence and causes huge social problems in Hong Kong. However, having considered all the circumstances of this case, having considered the letters that have been placed before the court and the contents of the report from the Commissioner for Correctional Services, I have decided to accede to the recommendation that has been made and order that the defendant shall be detained in a training centre. 12.In respect of the 2nd charge of failing to surrender to custody, I note that the bail money of $3,000 has been already estreated. So I intend to impose the training centre order in respect of both offences.
|