COURT: The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The defendant was seen to alight from a BMW private car and walked towards another unattended car, the Mazda private car, and used an anti-locking device to open the boot. He then took something from there and put it in his trousers pocket. He was intercepted by Custom officers and was found to be in possession of six packets of cocaine. A further search in the boot of the Mazda revealed more packets of drugs and one set of electronic scale.
Under caution, the defendant admitted the drugs found on him was cocaine and he worked for someone for HK$1,500 per day. Upon analysis, the drugs on his person were found to be 830 grams of a solid which contained 425.42 grams of cocaine. The other drugs were 26.04 grams of a solid containing 21.30 grams of ketamine. The market value of all the drugs found was in the region of a $796,000.
The defendant has one previous conviction back in 2012 of possession of dangerous drugs, of which he was fined. By way of mitigation, I am told that the defendant is now aged 19 and prior to his arrest, he has been a delivery worker, earning around HK$4,000 to HK$5,000. He lives with his parents, father in his 70s whilst the mother is in her 60s, and they are now in court with his two elder brothers to show their full support.
Counsel submitted that this is a typical case of a young man fallen into trap of hoping to earn quick money, which caused him to come into present offences. The defendant in his handwritten letter told me that having been incarcerated since his arrest, he had reflected on his wrongdoing and felt extremely remorseful for what he had done. And his guilty plea shows that he is prepared to face the music. The defendant as well as his family members urged the court to treat him as leniently as possible.
In sentencing drug-related offences, very little credit is given by the court to factors other than a defendant’s guilty plea. The tariff is one based on the weight of the narcotics.
I have taken into account all that could have been said by his counsel on his behalf, his guilty plea, and all the letters in mitigation. The narcotics of the cocaine here is 425.42 grams, whilst for the ketamine is 21.3 grams. If according to their own sentencing tariff, the cocaine falls within a 400 to 600 grams, 15 to 20 years starting point bracket; whilst the ketamine falls within a 10 to 50 grams, which is the 4 to 6 years tariff. The combined weight of the two narcotics being 446.72 grams, it means that had it all been cocaine, it is still within the 15 to 20 years bracket; whilst had it all been ketamine, it would be somewhere in the 300 to 600 grams, that is the 9 to 12 years bracket.
Bearing in the mind the proportion for cocaine in the present case is about 20 times that of ketamine, I think a starting point more in line with the tariff relating to cocaine is to be adopted. I consider a starting point of 16 years appropriate in the circumstances of the present case, and I shall give the defendant the full one-third discount for his guilty plea.
There is nothing in this case which warrants a further discount. He is sentenced to 128 months imprisonment, which means 10 years and 8 months.