HKSAR v. Chu Kin Shan, Christopher

DCCC 497/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 497 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial of one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs. As I have said, the quantity of ketamine was 34.32 grammes of a powder containing 27.17 grammes of ketamine.

2.The conduct of this trial was such that the defendant admitted he was in possession and the only issue was whether the prosecution could prove he was trafficking that amount of ketamine. 

3.I do not intend to repeat the facts of this case.  I gave full reasons in my verdict.

4.Much of the prosecution’s case was agreed in Exhibit P7.  There was a challenge to the video record of interview which was admitted after the challenge to its voluntariness.  P3 contains the defendant’s admissions of purchase of this ketamine for his own consumption.  This was also the same explanation under caution at the scene of the arrest. 

5.After the trial I rejected the suggestion that the defendant did buy the dangerous drugs for his own consumption.  I found the defendant could not have financially afforded to buy dangerous drugs of that value even if it was heavily discounted.

6.I found the defendant’s description of his drug habit far-fetched and I am sure it was put forward to try and convince the police that he did buy these dangerous drugs, the ketamine, to feed his drug habit. 

7.If the defendant had bought the dangerous drugs for his own consumption, I am sure to minimize the risk of arrest, he would have taken it home immediately, especially since the defendant is a person who had only just been released from custody.  Instead the defendant told the police that after the purchase of the drugs he went to eat and was still hanging around the same area where he had bought the dangerous drugs some two hours later when stopped.  I did not believe that was realistic or likely.

8.I have heard mitigation put forward on the defendant’s behalf.

9.He is only 19 years old; it is a young age but he is not extremely young.  This is his sixth conviction.  He has convictions for theft, possession of dangerous drugs and breach of probation orders.  He has been in and out of trouble since 2010. 

10.I have had sight of a drug addiction treatment centre report dated June 2012 and it supports what Mr Allan has put forward in mitigation.  It contains full details of the defendant’s family and education. Since leaving school, he has had some employment; it has been very sporadic. He has been for most of his time hanging around with bad peers that has led to a drug habit.  He has been given the opportunity of probation but that has failed to help him; a period in Hei Ling Chau Drug Addiction Treatment Centre clearly has not helped either.  He cannot stay away from the drug subculture. 

11.Guidelines exist for trafficking ketamine and I refer to the leading authority, Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323 and where between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, a 4 to 6 year term of imprisonment would be appropriate.  Mathematically speaking, the quantity in this charge should attract a 4-year-9-month starting point.

12.Mr Allan has done his utmost to mitigate on behalf of the defendant, but in this case it is appropriate the defendant face a term of imprisonment.  It would not be appropriate, bearing in mind the amount of dangerous drugs and the defendant’s background, to consider drug addiction treatment centre or even training centre or detention centre as suggested.

13.I hope the defendant will finally see the evils of dangerous drugs and be able to turn over a new leaf.  If he does not, he will spend his entire life in and out of institutions.

14.The defendant is still young and has the support of a family; he should take advantage of that.  The defendant’s mother has clearly been disappointed on numerous occasions but is still prepared to support the defendant. 

15.I have considered the facts of the case, quantity of dangerous drugs, mitigation and the guidelines from the Court of Appeal.  I will, after considering all those factors, take a starting point of 4 years and 3 months.

16.This was a conviction after trial, there is no reason to discount it further.  The defendant is sentenced to 4 years and 3 months.