He was searched by Customs whilst returning to Hong Kong at the Lo Wu control point. He was found to have concealed two bags of ketamine inside each of his socks.
These contained 54.97 grammes of a powder containing 46.92 grammes of ketamine.
Later search at his residence resulted in five bags of ketamine, one electronic scale, one plastic spoon and a quantity of empty resealable plastic bags.
Upon analysis they were 289.51 grammes of a powder containing 238.21 of ketamine. He told officers that he bought the five bags of ketamine in Hong Kong and he brought the two bags of drugs from Shenzhen back to Hong Kong.
The defendant is now aged 37. He has 11 items of previous convictions. A number of them are drug related and amongst them two were trafficking offences.
In 1998 for trafficking and possession he had been sentenced to a total of 6 years’ imprisonment. His last conviction was in June 2007 for which he received 32 months’ imprisonment for using a false instrument and he was discharged from prison last in March 2009.
By way of mitigation defendant’s counsel asked me to give full credit for his guilty plea. Circumstances as to how he was found to be in possession of the drugs were advanced and counsel tried to persuade this court that this defendant, whilst being a conventional trafficker, had part of the drugs for his own consumption.
In sentencing the defendant I have taken into account the nature of the offences, the drugs involved, its quantity and the sentencing tariff. I have also taken into account his guilty plea and mitigation forwarded by counsel.
According to the guideline laid down in the case of Hii Siew Cheng trafficking between 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine warrants a starting point between 6 to 9 years.
The present case, in aggregate, the drugs involved were 285.13 grammes of ketamine, falls within that bracket and towards the higher end. The 1st charge also involves a cross-border element which is an aggravating feature.
It has been urged by defence counsel that a significant portion of the drugs were intended for the defendant’s own consumption.
In the light of the case of Wong Suet Hau I take into account the following factors. The total quantity in this case is near to 300 grammes. Altogether there were five plus two plastic bags of drugs. Two in the process of being imported into Hong Kong, whilst five bags were already at his residence.
Items used for packaging were present in his residence. Whilst he claimed to be a habitual user and, in fact, upon arrest he did tell the police officers that the drugs were for his own consumption and that he bought them in bulk because it was cheaper, his criminal record shows that he is both a user as well as a trafficker.
Although his counsel urge on his behalf that he used to be a construction site worker earning an average $10,000 per month, which is quite sufficient to purchase the drugs in bulk to satisfy his own addiction, one thing I cannot lose sight of is that even on mitigation that he claimed to have purchased the whole bulk at $5,000, the retail value of those drugs was $42,000-odd, which means that after he has repackaged them the value is many times higher than its purchase value.
I am not satisfied that the defendant’s claim that a significant proportion of the drugs involved were for his own self consumption has been made out.
For the total amount of drugs involved in this case I adopt a starting point of 9½ years’ imprisonment. He is given the one-third discount for his plea which will result in a total of 76 months’ imprisonment.
I apportion them as follows. Charge 1, 3 years’ imprisonment. Charge 2, 6 years and 4 months to run concurrently.