Case Document

100%

DCCC 27/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 27 OF 2014

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

	HKSAR
	v
	Cheung Tsz-wai

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

Before:

Deputy District Judge Casewell

Date:

6 March 2014 at 10.29 am

Present:	Mr Gary Leung, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
	Miss Vivian Wong Wing-man, instructed by Anthony Kwan & Co, for the defendant

Offence:

Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug, the drug in question being ketamine and the quantity being 72.45 grammes of that drug.

2.The defendant has accepted the facts of the case and I have convicted him accordingly.

3.The facts themselves are unremarkable. They show that on 13 November last year the defendant was intercepted at about 8.44 in the evening in Yuen Long. He was searched and five plastic bags were found in the left front pocket of his trousers, together with two mobile phones, and those plastic bags contained the ketamine outlined in the charge.

4.He later admitted under caution that the ketamine belonged to him and we know that the ketamine had a market value of around $14,921 and the defendant has admitted to me he was unlawfully trafficking in that drug.

5.The defendant’s antecedents were agreed and these establish that he is only 16 years old. He is a person of clear record and had an employment history as a delivery worker and a warehouse assistant and he has been in custody since his arrest.

6.In mitigation, obviously the defendant’s young age is referred to, as is his plea of guilty. He has completed Forms 1 and 2, went to New Zealand for Form 3 but was unsuccessful there, returned to Hong Kong to study Form 4 and is studying it. He currently is living with his parents, who are, understandably supportive of him at present. Whilst he was in Hong Kong he obviously met with some unfortunate individuals, which led him into this particular form of offending. I am told that in his schooldays he had generally good conduct.

7.In support, in mitigation for the defendant, it was said that he has pleaded guilty. He is said to be remorseful. He has strong parental support. He was a courier of the drug, not a mastermind in any sense and, of course, there is his young age.

8.The question of the defendant’s age does arise in terms of how it should be dealt in terms of sentencing and I think it is fair to say the courts have said that in offences like this, it carries little weight.

9.Most recently in a case, the Secretary for Justice v Ko Fei Tat [2002] HKCA 1, reference is made to an earlier case of Attorney-General v Kong Kin Man [1997] HKLRD 350, where it is said that age, whether youth or old age, carried little weight in drug trafficking offences. It was only in rare cases that detention in a training centre was appropriate on a conviction for drug trafficking. There was a considerable public interest involved in showing by deterrence sentences that the courts will treat drug trafficking most severely.

10.So, it would appear that the defendant’s age is not a significant factor in mitigating the sentence that must be imposed.

11.It is common ground that the defendant is within the sentencing range of 50 to 300 grammes, which is a range of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.

12.I bear in mind the mitigation put forward.

13.Nevertheless, sentence of imprisonment must be imposed.

14.Considering the defendant’s age, I consider that I should take the lowest point of recommended tariff for sentencing, so my starting point for sentence will be one of 6 years’ imprisonment.

15.The defendant is entitled to one-third discount for that sentence, leaving a final sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.

16.That is the sentence I will impose.