HKSAR v. Lau Kwan Long
|
DCCC 104/2015 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO.104 OF 2015 -----------------------------------
---------------------------- Charge and facts 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug, ie 96.8 grammes of a powder containing 40.8 grammes of ketamine. 2.At around 11: 53 p.m. on 4 December 2014, the police found him acting suspiciously outside a public housing block in Tung Tau Estate, Kowloon City. A body search revealed from his rucksack a plastic bag containing 16 resealable plastic bags with contents (later confirmed by the government chemist to be the subject-matter of the present charge). 3.He had with him $1,138 cash and a mobile phone. After arrest and caution, he stated that the ketamine was for his own consumption. In a subsequent video-recorded interview under caution in the presence of his legal representative and his father, he denied ownership of the drugs seized as well as his addiction to drug. 4.The police estimated the street value of the drug to be around $13,552. Mitigation 5.He was aged 16 years and 2 months at the time of the offence. He is now aged 16 years and 8 months. He has a clear record. 6.According to the Background Report, he had an average academic performance in his primary and early secondary years. There was a continuous drop in his scores from F. 2 onwards. He did not complete his repeating year for F. 4. He had no working experience except briefly as a restaurant waiter. His parents are full-time salespersons. He is their only child. Family finance and relationship have been satisfactory. 7.Since F. 3, he began to mix with dubious peers and embarked on night time activities in internet bars, game centres, and karaokes. I was told by his previous counsel, Mr. Sher, in mitigation that he had been treated to meals and entertainments which he could not afford with his pocket money. He wanted to earn money by delivering drugs for his friends. 8.His parents were shocked by his involvement in the present offence. They hoped he would study and receive training and rehabilitation in a gospel-based voluntary drug addiction treatment centre in view of his age. Mr. Sher had handed up various mitigating letters. There were from a church minister, a friend of the family, a discipline master of the school, a teacher, the headmaster of Christian Zheng Sheng College, the hostel and ministry secretary of Hong Kong Christian Kun Sun Association Ltd. and himself. They requested me to consider placing him in Christian Zheng Sheng College. I understood that this could only be achieved if I put him on probation. 9.After hearing mitigation from his present counsel, Miss Ma, I call for a Training Centre Report. The Report is now before me. It considers him suitable for detention in the Training Centre. 10.I am told by Miss Ma on the one hand that his maternal uncle plans to take him to a boarding school in Taiwan to make up for the lost opportunities in his formal education, but on the other hand, the Report also tells me that he prefers a jail term to the Training Centre as he does not think he can benefit from the Training Centre programme. Sentencing considerations 11.There are sentencing guidelines for traffickers of ketamine laid down in HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng [2007] 1 HKLRD 1. For 10 – 50 g of ketamine, the sentence shall be 4 – 6 years. 12.Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, provides:
13.This section does not apply to the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug as this offence is an excepted offence by Schedule 3. Sentencing this Defendant 14.My real options are between the Training Centre and the prison. Other options will fail to address the gravity of the offence. For a prison term, I would have adopted a starting point of 5 years and 3 months. One-third off for a guilty plea, the sentence would have been 42 months. I am aware that so far he has been detained for about 6 months pending sentence. Depending on the person’s performance, the Training Centre programme shall be between 18 months and 3 years. It takes a vilely uncooperative character to top the band. 15.In sentencing a 16-year-old drug trafficker of a clear record, rehabilitation remains the forefront factor. His motivation to return to study is most questionable and he has no palpable plan for his own future. I am of the view that the Training Centre placement will be to the best interest of him and the community. The placement can turn him to good account for years to come amid little incentive for in-house idling as he can earn an early release by good conduct and industry.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment