DCCC345/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.345 OF 2010
________________________________________
HKSAR
V
WONG Kit-ho Defendant
________________________________________
Before: Douglas T.H. Yau, District Judge
Date: 18 May 2010 at 10:11am
Present: Mr. Chua Man Pang William, Public Prosecutor for HKSAR
Ms. Betty Chan of M/S Betty Chan & Co assigned by DLA,
for defendant
Charge: Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
Reasons for Sentence
1. The defendant is 17 years old. He faces one charge of trafficking in
dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs
Ordinance, Cap.134. It is alleged that the defendant on 9th February 2010, at the rear
lane of No.3B Tsing Chau Street, Hung Hom, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully
trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 10.42 grammes of a powder containing 8.36
grammes of Ketamine.
2. He pleaded guilty to the charge, admitted to the summary of facts and
was duly convicted.
Summary of Facts
3. In the evening of 9th February 2010, a party of police officers
conducted an anti-dangerous drug operation in the Hung Hom area. At about 8:32pm,
PW1 and another officer saw the defendant acting suspiciously as he was walking
along Ma Tau Wai Road towards Tokwawan area. The defendant was intercepted and
searched. One resealable plastic bag of dangerous drug was found inside his right
shoe. The defendant was arrested for possession of dangerous drug. Under caution,
the defendant said he was delivering the ‘perfume’ to Hoi Sum Park for a friend in
return for a free meal.
4. Government Chemist confirmed the substance found on the defendant
was 10.42 grammes of a powder containing 8.36 grammes of Ketamine.
5. In a video recorded interview taken later on in the same day, the
defendant stated under caution, inter alia, that he came to know an unknown male
1
whilst playing online game in a cyber café in the Sham Shui Po area in the afternoon
of the same day. Later on at 7pm, the defendant met that same man again in a park in
Ka Wai Chuen. He offered to treat the defendant a meal if the defendant could deliver
a packet of Ketamine to a ‘tom boy’ at the basketball court of Hoi Sum Park in Hung
Hom. The man told the defendant that ‘tom boy’ will pay him $50 for the meal.
6. The man then gave a packet of Ketamine to the defendant who then
transferred the contents into another plastic bag and hid that in his right shoe. The
man told the defendant that the packet of Ketamine was worth $1,500. The defendant
knew that Ketamine was a dangerous drug but he himself was not a drug user. The
defendant was intercepted by the police before he got to Hoi Sum Park.
Mitigation
7. The defendant has a clear record. He has just turned 17 years old at
the time of sentence (born on 15th May 1993). The dangerous drugs involved was just
slightly over 8 grammes of Ketamine. There is no evidence that the defendant was
embarking on a calculated criminal course, it was more of a case of a young person
being manipulated by an experienced drug dealer. The defendant wrote a letter in his
own mitigation indicating his remorse and his desire to become a better person so that
he can look after his aging father, who is a single parent. Ms. Chan for the defendant
submitted that this would be an appropriate case to impose a Training Centre Order.
Sentencing authorities
8. The case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng (許守城) [2009]
1 HKLRD 1, CAAR7/2006 should apply, and the indicated tariff for sentence after
trial for traffickers in Ketamine is 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment for between 1 to 10
grammes of Ketamine. However, given the young age and clear record of the
defendant, I called for a Detention Centre and a Training Centre report before
sentencing. The defendant is found to be unsuitable for the detention centre but
suitable for detention in a Training Centre. The maximum period of detention in a
training centre is 3 years.
9. As the prosecution rightly pointed out, trafficking in dangerous drugs
is an excepted offence, and as such, the age of the defendant may not play such an
important role in his sentencing.
Sentence
10. The defendant is 17 at the time of sentence. The offence that he had
pleaded guilty to is a serious offence and would have attracted a sentence of around
43 months’ imprisonment. Since he pleaded guilty to the charge, that would have
resulted in the discounted sentence of around 28 months’ imprisonment.
11. Having considered the relatively young age of the defendant (although
bearing in mind the guidelines sentence and the fact that we are dealing with an
excepted offence), the recommendation of the officer in the Training Centre
suitability report as well as the mitigation put forward on the defendant’s behalf by
his counsel, I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the community and that having
2
regard to the defendant’s character and previous conduct, and to the circumstances of
the offence, it is expedient for the defendant’s reformation and for the prevention of
crime that he should undergo a period of training in a training centre.
12. I will therefore order that the defendant be subject to a Training
Centre Order, pursuant to s.4(1) of the Training Centres Ordinance, Cap.280.
Douglas T.H. Yau
District Judge
3