HKSAR v. Ngai Chung Man

HCCC 238/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 238 OF 2013

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug involving 172.68 grammes of ketamine. At about 5 pm on 29 December 2012, police officers intercepted the defendant outside the basketball court near Yan Oi House, Lei Cheng Uk Estate, Sham Shui Po. The police searched the defendant and found two plastic bags of ketamine inside his trousers pocket. Later on at the police station, another 11 plastic bags of ketamine were found hidden between his trousers and underpants. The defendant admitted under caution that he delivered the ketamine to Lei Cheng Uk for others. According to police statistics, the value of the ketamine in question was about $26,000.

The defendant is 17 and has no criminal record. He received education up to form 2. He was unemployed at the time of the offence. He lives with his family at Cheung Sha Wan. He is not an addict. Counsel for the defendant, Mr Khattak, submits that the defendant was diagnosed in the year 2009 of having reading and writing deficits which contributed to his underachievement and impaired his learning motivation. This factor contributed to his dropping out from school. The psychological report revealed that the defendant had high average score in non-verbal abilities, but low average score in verbal abilities. Mr Khattak urges this court to consider this as a factor for additional leniency. In his letter to this court, the defendant shows deep remorse. He pleads for leniency, although he realises the serious nature of the offence.

School social worker, Miss Wong, urges this court to consider sending the defendant to Christian Zheng Sheng College for rehabilitation in a safe environment. She points out that the parents of the defendant had not disciplined him properly. Although she advised the defendant about his future, however, he did not pick any relevant courses, due to a lack of confidence and drive.

Trafficking is a serious offence. A deterrent sentence is indicated even for offenders of young age. Immediate custodial sentence is warranted to reflect its serious nature.

Mr Khattak relies on HKSAR v Chiu Peng ([2002] 1 HKLRD 185)to argue for extra remission. That case concerned a defendant who suffered from major depressive episodes at the time of the offence. That condition justified further discount as a reflection of diminished criminality on the part of the accused. In my judgment, it is not the situation in the present case. The defendant agreed to traffic the drug in order to repay his friend, Siu Keung. I am sure he was fully aware of the culpability of the offence. In my view, the defendant should stop dwelling on his learning problems anymore. He should take up some vocational training as soon as practicable.

For the 172.68 grammes of ketamine, according to the tariff set out in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng ([2009] 1 HKLRD 1) the starting point should be 7 years and 6 months. I deduct 2 years and 6 months for his plea.

There being no valid reasons for further reduction, I sentence him to 5 years’ imprisonment.