HKSAR v. SUNG KWOK MAN

DCCC1064/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1064 OF 2011

----------------------

----------------------

--------------------------

Reasons for Sentence

--------------------------

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.  The quantity is 143.10 grammes of a powder containing 91.23 grammes of ketamine.  I have to consider the overall narcotic content, which is 91.23 grammes of ketamine.   

3.  The defendant has agreed a set of facts and I have convicted him of the offence.

4.  The offence was committed on 6 August 2011 in the Long Ping Estate in Yuen Long.  The defendant had driven a private car into that estate, and after he had got off the car he had been stopped by the police in the park on the ground floor.  

5.  As a result of a body search, in the right front pocket of the defendant’s shorts, one large transparent resealable bag was found.  This contained six small transparent resealable bags of white powder.

6.  When the defendant was arrested for trafficking in those drugs, he said that he had ketamine for his own consumption.  He later said that he bought it in bulk for a discount, that he consumed ketamine and the amount would last for one month.

7.  The substance was analysed and found to contain 91.23 grammes of ketamine and I am told the street value of that is $15,884. 

8.  The defendant has admitted in mitigation today that he would have sold the drugs on and would have consumed what was left over.

9.  The defendant’s antecedents show that he has four previous convictions.  He has spent a large period of time in prison.  He received a sentence of 18 years in 1993 and seems to have been released in 2005, and in that year he was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug and he was placed on probation. 

10.  The defendant is a 40 year old man.  He is married and has a son aged 6 years old. 

11.  The defendant through counsel tells me that he has been a ketamine abuser since the age of 16.  He spent a lengthy period in prison as I have outlined, but by 2005, he was convicted of another offence of possession of a dangerous drug, which suggests he had reverted back to his addiction at that point.      

12.  The defendant had been working as a motor technician. 

13.  The defendant has pleaded guilty.  He is an admitted addict to ketamine.  He says he has a loyal wife who is present in court today and a young son.  The wife had unfortunately had a miscarriage since the defendant has been remanded in custody. 

14.  The defendant asks for leniency. 

15.  In cases of this kind, the court must certainly bear in mind the tariff sentences that have been laid down in cases such as this.

16.  This quantity of ketamine lies in the range of 50 to 300 grammes, which is a sentence of between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. 

17.  The relevant factors for sentencing of course include the fact that the defendant is remorseful, and that he is a ketamine addict.  It is not possible in this case to quantify the amount of the substance which might have been retained for the defendant’s own consumption. 

18.  I considered that, bearing in mind of all the mitigating factors, including the defendant’s clear addiction to the substance, I should take a starting point at the lower part of the range of sentencing.  I will take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment and reduce that to 4 years’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.