IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.1019OF 2009
Before: Douglas T.H. Yau, District Judge
Date: 17th March 2010 at 3:08 pm
Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
Reasons for Sentence of D3
1. The defendant is 17 and had been working as a cook for some 3 years, which means that he had been working since he was 14. It wasput forward in mitigation that D3 is of relatively young age and that he only played a very minor role in the incident. D3 did nothandle the money, there is no evidence that he distributed the drug. It was submitted that D3 is a “silly young boy” rather thana trafficker and that the sentencing tariff of 4-6 years should not be adhered to.
2. Usage of dangerous drugs is getting more and more prevalent among young people. There is a need for deterrent sentence, especiallyfor those who chose not only to harm themselves but to harm others by trafficking in the drugs in social situations where peer pressuremay cause those otherwise who may not come into contact with dangerous drugs to succumb.
3. This is an excepted offence that the defendant has been convicted with and his age is not such that would be categorized as extremeyouth and should not in my opinion be given much weight in mitigation.
4. D3 is 17 years old and has been working for 3 years as a cook, he must have known full well the consequences of his action. Thereare no good reasons to depart from the guideline sentence laid down in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng (許守城)  1 HKLRD 1, CAAR7/2006.
5. I do not agree with counsel that D3 played only a minor role in the trafficking. He was the one who had the phone number of thesupplier in his phone. He made the call and there is no evidence that D1 had told him how much to get which means that D3 himselfknew exactly how much drugs to get, which shows again that he knew exactly what he was doing.
6. For the 14.33g of Ketamine that I found D1 and D3 had trafficked in, I will adopt a starting point of 51 months’ imprisonment. Iwill reduce it by 6 months to reflect D3’s clear record and in recognition of his relatively young age. Since D3 was convicted aftertrial, there is to be no discount and he is sentence to 45 months’ imprisonment.
Appeal against conviction dismissed. Please see CACC125/2010 dated 20 December 2010