A A
DCCC915/2010
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 915 OF 2010
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v. E
Tai Ka-wai
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: Deputy District Judge H.F. Woo
Date: 26 January 2011 at 10.33 am
H Present: Miss Chan Sze-yan, PP, of the Department of Justice, H
for HKSAR
Ms Tai Po-yuen, Corrina, instructed by S H Chan & Co.,
I assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the I
Defendant
J Offence: Possession of dangerous drugs (管有危險藥物) J
K --------------------- K
L
Reasons for Sentence L
---------------------
M M
The charge
N 1. The defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to a N
count of possession of dangerous drugs, namely 29.21 grammes of
O a powder containing 22.62 grammes of ketamine under section 8(1) O
(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
P P
The facts
Q Q
2. The facts of the case are summarized as follows. At
R about 1925 hours on 1 June 2010, police officers were patrolling R
the staircase area of Heng Tsui House, Fu Heng Estate in Tai Po.
S When they were on the 19th floor, they saw the defendant putting S
his right hand into the fire hose reel whilst talking to two
T T
men. Shortly, he was seen holding a substance which was white in
colour. Upon search, the defendant was found to be in possession
U U
of four transparent plastic bags which contained 29.21 grammes
CRT11/26.1.2011/SY 1 DCCC915/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
of a powder containing 22.62 grammes of ketamine and cash of
about $1,137. There was nothing illegal found on the two men.
B B
C 3. Under caution, the defendant claimed that the C
substance was ketamine and that it was for his own consumption.
D He stated that the two men had no knowledge of what he was doing D
and were simply accompanying him to the location.
E E
The defendant’s background and mitigation
F F
4. The defendant is 19 years old and has a clear record.
G He received education up to Form 4 and remained idle after G
leaving school for over half a year. He then commenced his
H working life in March 2009 as a lorry attendant. In May 2010 he H
became a computer salesman earning $6,000 per month but quitted
I I
his job in December 2010. He lived with his parents and his
elder brother who are people of industrious and decent
J J
background.
K K
5. Parental supervision became loose when the defendant’s
L mother started to join the workforce to augment the family L
income. Soonest the defendant adopted a loose lifestyle while
M mingling with some undesirable peers in his secondary school. He M
took no heed of his parents’ advice. In mid 2006 the defendant
N N
started to consume dangerous drugs under the temptation of triad
peers. Due to unsatisfactory academic performance, the defendant
O O
quitted school in mid 2008. He took cannabis, ketamine and
P “Ice”. He sniffed ketamine two to three times a week, eventually P
he landed himself in the current offence. He claimed that the
Q ketamine in question was purchased from a friend for $1,600. Q
R R
6. Whilst on bail, the defendant did not show deep
reflection. Not only he kept taking drugs but continued to have
S S
close association with the triad peers. His last dosage of drugs
T was in December 2010. The defendant appeared to be co-operative T
in disclosing his triad linkage, outside merriment and drug
U U
CRT11/26.1.2011/SY 2 DCCC915/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
taking behaviour. But he showed remorse superficially to the
interviewing officer of the Correctional Services Department.
B B
C 7. The defendant claimed that he realized the gravity of C
the charge and had learned a bitter lesson during the remand. He
D expressed his wish to withdraw from taking drugs in future and D
was willing to be sentenced to an addiction treatment centre.
E E
8. The defendant’s father was disappointed with him but
F F
still wished that the defendant could turn over a new leaf in
G future. He promised to render the defendant full support for his G
rehabilitation.
H H
9. By virtue of section 4 of the Drug Addiction Treatment
I I
Centres Ordinance, Cap. 244, a report of the CSD on the
defendant’s suitability for cure and rehabilitation at the
J J
addiction treatment centre was obtained. It was the medical
K
officer’s opinion that the defendant was a drug dependant, a K
period of drug abstinence treatment was considered beneficial to
L his rehabilitation. Hence, the defendant was considered suitable L
for admission to a drug addiction treatment centre.
M M
10. In the circumstances of the case and having regard to
N N
the defendant’s character and previous conduct, it would seem
that it is in the interest of the defendant and the public that
O O
the defendant should undergo a period of cure and rehabilitation
P in a drug treatment centre. P
Q 11. By virtue of section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Q
Ordinance, Cap. 221, and having taken into consideration to all
R R
the circumstances of the case and of the defendant, nature of
the offence, his guilty plea, the quantity of drugs found on
S S
him, mitigation advanced by his counsel and the recommendation
T suggested by the medical officer of the CSD, this court views T
that the most appropriate sentence to be imposed on the
U U
CRT11/26.1.2011/SY 3 DCCC915/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
defendant would be a DATC order. Hence, this court would order a
DATC order with conviction recorded.
B B
C C
D D
E (H.F. Woo) E
Deputy District Judge
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT11/26.1.2011/SY 4 DCCC915/2010/Sentence
V V