DCCC86/2014

DCCC86/2014

A A B DCCC 86/2014 B C C IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D CRIMINAL CASE NO. 86 OF 2014 E E ----------------------------------- F HKSAR F v. G G TSUI Long-man ----------------------------------- H H Before: HH Judge Douglas T.H. Yau I Date: 10 April 2014 at 3:02pm I Present: Mr. Mark Wei, Counsel on fiat for HKSAR J J Mr. Ken Ng instructed by M/S J. Chan Yip So & Partners, K K assigned by DLA, for the defendant L Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) L ---------------------------- M M Reasons for Sentence N ---------------------------- N 1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in O O dangerous drugs. Particulars of the charge are that he on 8 November 2013 P at room 3416, 34th floor Tin Chak House of Tin Wan Estate in Aberdeen P unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 33.68g of a powder Q Q containing 26.73g of ketamine. R R Summary of facts S S T T U U CRT21/10.4.2014 DCCC86/2014/Reasons for Sentence V V  - 2 - A A B 2. The defendant was seen entering the charge premises at B around 7:49pm on the charge date by police officers during an C C anti-narcotics operation being undertaken in the vicinity of Tin Chak D House. D E E 3. Three police officers intercepted the defendant for inquiry F and they searched the charge premises in execution of a search warrant. F G G 4. When the police officers explained to the defendant that they will H begin searching the defendant's bedroom, the defendant told them not to H make a mess. The defendant then took out a key to unlock the door of his I I bedroom and took out a paper box and showed it to the police officers. J Inside the box were 3 re-sealable transparent plastic bags containing some J powder, which were later confirmed by the government chemist to be K K 33.68g of powder with 26.73g of ketamine. L L M 5. In addition to the powder, 2 plastic bags containing a total of M 200 re-sealable transparent plastic bags, one electronic scale, two glass N N tubes, one plastic rod, and one silver spoon with traces of ketamine were O also found in the premises. O P P 6. The street value of the seized drugs is estimated to be around $4,075. Q The defendant had with him one mobile phone, HK$1,960 and RMB200 at Q the time of his arrest. R R S 7. In the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant S claimed that he lived in the premises with his mother and sister, that only T T U U CRT21/10.4.2014 DCCC86/2014/Reasons for Sentence V V  - 3 - A A B he had the key to his bedroom, the bedroom was always locked when he B was away and he would not let his mother and sister into the room. C C D 8. The defendant also claimed that he bought the drugs from a D man he met while playing video games in Kwun Tong on 6th November. E E They began chatting and the defendant told the man about his money F problem. The man suggested for the defendant to traffic in dangerous F drugs. The two of them met at Kwun Tong ferry pier and the defendant G G bought 3 and a half packets of ketamine of around 80g for $2,500. H H 9. The defendant used the electronic scale to weigh the drugs I I and transferred them into smaller packets. He used his mobile phone to J contact buyers for the drugs. He sold each 1.3g packet of ketamine for J $100 and 2.4 to 2.5g packet for $200. He had already sold to 10 to 20 K K people before his arrest. He would usually sell the drugs at the staircase L L between 34th and 35th floor of Tin Chak House. M M Previous convictions N N 10. The defendant has one previous conviction for unlawful O sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 dated 14th June 2012. He was O sentenced to 18 months’ probation for that offence. There was P P subsequently a breach of that order and the probation order was extended Q to 24 months, with effect from 14th June 2012. The defendant therefore Q committed the present offence whilst the probation order was still in effect. R R The probation order was set to expire on 13th June 2014. S S T T U U CRT21/10.4.2014 DCCC86/2014/Reasons for Sentence V V  - 4 - A A B Mitigation B 11. The defendant is 19 years old. He was born in Hong Kong and C C educated up to Form 4 level. He started working when he was 17 and was D D last working as a sushi apprentice in a restaurant, albeit only for a few days. E A corresponding record of payment of wages was produced. E F F 12. Mr. Lun, the social worker supervising the defendant, wrote G to inform the court that the defendant suffered greatly when his father G passed away in 1999, when the defendant was at a very young age. H H I 13. At the time of the commission of the offence, the defendant I was residing with his mother and younger sister in the premises where the J J dangerous drugs were found. K K 14. Mr. Ng for the defendant suggested that the proper starting L L point when applying the appropriate sentencing tariff for trafficking in M 26.73g of ketamine is that of 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. M N N Sentencing Tariff O 15. The sentencing tariff for trafficking in ketamine is found in O the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng (許守城) [2009] 1 P P HKLRD 1, CAAR7/2006. The sentence after trial for trafficking between Q Q 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment. I R agree entirely with Mr. Ng’s suggested calculation of the starting point in R our present case. S S T T U U CRT21/10.4.2014 DCCC86/2014/Reasons for Sentence V V  - 5 - A A B Sentence B 16. Having heard the defendant’s mitigation, I find that there is C C no reason to depart from the sentencing tariff. I note the defendant’s age is D below 21, but trafficking in dangerous drugs is an excepted offence and D imprisonment does not need to be the last resort, since s.109A of the E E Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221 does not apply. F F 17. For the narcotic content of 26.73g of ketamine, I adopt a G G starting point of 57 months’ imprisonment, discounting it by one third in H recognition of the defendant’s guilty plea and sentence him to 38 months’ H imprisonment. I I J 18. The defendant’s application for the return of his seized mobile J phone is refused because the defendant had specifically admitted in the K K summary of facts that the phone had been used by him to contact drug L L buyers. M M 19. The probation order imposed in case number E/648/12 be N N discharged pursuant to s.6 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, O Cap.298. The probation period would end in about 2 months’ time, and I O find it reasonable to discharge the order since the defendant will be serving P P his term of imprisonment in the present case for the remainder of the Q probation order in any event. Q R R S S (Douglas T.H. Yau) T District Judge T U U CRT21/10.4.2014 DCCC86/2014/Reasons for Sentence V V