|
DCCC1264/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1264 OF 2011
----------------------
----------------------
|
Before:
|
Deputy District Judge H F Woo
|
|
Date:
|
22 February 2012 at 10.34 am
|
|
Present:
|
Miss Claudia Ko, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Osmond Lam Kwok-fai, instructed by Raymond T M Lau & Co., for the Defendant
|
|
Offence:
|
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
|
--------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
--------------------------
The Charge
1. The defendant faced a count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 159.97 grammes of a powder containing 77.47 grammes of ketamine. Such offence is contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.
The Facts
2. The facts of the case can be summarised as follows.
3. On 15 September 2011, police officers including DPC58728 and DPC1070 had mounted an anti-narcotics operation and laid ambush in the vicinity of Anchor Street Playground at Mongkok (“the Playground”). At around 2.30 am, the two officers saw the defendant getting off a taxi with a white plastic bag (“Exhibit P1”) in his left hand. He then loitered outside the male public toilet of the Playground in a suspicious manner. The two officers therefore intercepted the defendant.
4. Upon search, it was found that Exhibit P1 contained a paper box, 18 resealable plastic bags containing a total of 159.97 grammes of a powder containing 77.47 grammes of ketamine (“Exhibit P2”) were found inside the paper box. Cash of $620 and two mobile phones were found on the defendant.
5. The defendant was then arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under caution, the defendant admitted the offence and said that he was helping another to deliver the dangerous drugs. He further revealed that an unknown male had asked him if he wanted some work. When he agreed so, the male then instructed him to deliver the dangerous drug, i.e. Exhibit P2, to the Playground and wait for his phone call. The reward for the delivery of the ketamine would be determined after the delivery. He did not have any personal particulars or contact details of the male. The reward for the delivery of the ketamine as it would be determined after the delivery. Whilst waiting for the male’s phone call, the police intercepted and arrested him.
6. The retail price for Exhibit P2 was around $18,880 at the material time.
Background of the defendant
7. The defendant is now 20 years old. He used to be a transportation worker and a salesman. He was unemployed at the time of the arrest. He has one previous record of criminal damage in July 2008, whereupon he was sentenced to the Training Centre. Upon his release in January 2010 and in less than
2 year’s time, under the influence of undesirable peers, he regrettably committed the present offence.
Sentencing Guidelines
8. Sentence tariffs for trafficking ketamine after trial were laid down by the Court of Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR7/2006. It was held that 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine would fall within the tariff band of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. The harmful effect of ketamine to drug abusers and to society had also been elaborated by the Court of Appeal in Hii’s case.
Sentence
9. The present offence is an excepted offence. The defendant, though of young age, was not of extreme youth. The quantity of narcotic contents was huge and involving 77.47 grammes of ketamine. The defendant had them with him for financial reward.
10. Apparently the defendant had not benefited from the disciplinary training he received in the Training Centre. He was not reformed and had never learnt his lessons from his previous 18 months’ detention in the Training Centre. In about one and a half year’s time after his release from the Training Centre, he was arrested for the present offence.
11. Trafficking in a dangerous drug is considered to be a very serious offence by the courts of Hong Kong. Deterrent sentence is called for in all circumstances. There were no features in this case which would justify any departure from the guideline tariffs.
12. Having considered all the circumstances of the case and of the defendant, the mitigation advanced by the defence counsel and the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal, this court will adopt a starting point of 6 years’, i.e. 72 months’ imprisonment. Nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his plea so as to reduce the sentence to 4 years’ imprisonment. There were no other circumstances which would allow the sentence to be further reduced.
13. This court now orders a 48 months’ imprisonment.
|
H F Woo
Deputy District Judge |
|