CRIMINAL CASE NO. 360 OF 2010
COURT: On 15 October 2010 at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court, the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
He admitted a Summary of Facts submitted by the prosecution upon which that charge was based. He was, as a consequence, committed to this court for sentence on that day.
The particulars of the charge to which the defendant pleaded guilty alleged that on 1 June 2010, at the Ground Floor of the Kwong Yee House, Kwong Fuk Estate in Tai Po, he unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 189.97 grammes of a powder containing 142.88 grammes of ketamine.
Today before me he has confirmed his plea of guilty and the Summary of Facts. That Summary of Facts reveals that on 1 June 2010, just before 8.30 pm, the defendant was intercepted by police officers after he came out of the lift of Kwong Yee House and was walking towards the exit of the building. He was searched, and in the front pocket of his trousers they found a cigarette packet which contained a transparent resealable plastic bag. They also found another black plastic bag which also contained 13 transparent resealable plastic bags.
The police suspected that inside these plastic bags there were dangerous drugs. He was arrested and taken to his residence in Kwong Yee House, where a search revealed a large quantity of resealable plastic bags and an electronic scale.
The suspicions of the police officers with respect to the contents of the plastic bags found in the defendant’s possession proved to be correct. An analysis by the Government Chemist established that the total quantity of drugs carried by the defendant that day was 142.88 grammes of ketamine. That quantity of drugs was valued in excess of $22,000.
Initially the defendant asserted that the dangerous drugs found in his possession were for his own consumption, but he now accepts that that was not correct, and that he was trafficking in that quantity of drugs.
The defendant is 24 years of age. He has two prior convictions, one of which is for possession of dangerous drugs. The antecedents statement which has been provided to me suggests that he is himself a drug addict.
There is little in his background which assists him by way of mitigation. He was educated to secondary level 3. He was, prior to this offence, a transport worker. What is significant in his mitigation is that he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. It is also apparent from documents submitted on his behalf by Mr Fu that he is genuinely remorseful for his conduct.
Nevertheless, there is nothing which would allow me to give to him a discount from the appropriate starting point beyond the recommended level of one-third. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that it is only in exceptional circumstances that a court should increase the quantity of that discount.
The Court of Appeal guidelines for sentencing for those convicted after trial of trafficking in the drug ketamine are contained in the judgment of The Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. At the conclusion of that judgment there are set out parameters for sentences with respect to the quantities of drugs which are the subject of the charge.
In the instant case, the quantity of drugs that the defendant was trafficking in, namely an amount just below 143 grammes of ketamine, puts the sentencing range in the bracket No. 4, which is 50 to 300 grammes, where the Court of Appeal has recommended sentences of between 6 and 9 years’ imprisonment after trial.
In the circumstances of the present case, I consider that the appropriate starting point for sentence is slightly in excess of 7 years’ imprisonment. I will adopt a starting point of 7 years. Given the defendant’s timeous plea of guilty and the other factors advanced in mitigation, I will discount that by an amount of one-third.
That will result in a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 8 months. That is the term that I impose.