HKSAR v. WONG KING KUEN

DCCC1239/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1239 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant is convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug on his own plea.

2.  The facts are as follows.

3.  At about 6 pm on 24 September 2011, the police ambushed outside Room 906 of Wing Sin House in Upper Wong Tai Sin Estate.  When a man came out, the police took the chance to rush into the premises.  There were the defendant and four other persons inside.  The defendant claimed to be the owner of the flat.

4.  Inside the premises there was a box holding seven bags of ketamine containing a total of 88.04 grammes of powder containing 31.49 grammes of ketamine.

5.  The defendant told the police that he had the ketamine for his own consumption.  He bought that lot that much in order to save costs.  He said he would buy about three ounces from Ah Keung every month.

6.  Here in court, the defendant admits that he trafficked in that quantity of dangerous drugs as found by the police in his premises.

7.  In mitigation, defence counsel said the defendant himself has been addicted to taking ketamine for about two years.  He would also take some of these drugs from that lot of ketamine as found by the police in the premises, but there was no specific amount as to how much he would keep for his own consumption.

8.  The defendant is aged 22.  He was born in China and he came to Hong Kong in 2002.

9.  In 2008 he was first convicted in court of possession of dangerous drugs.  He was given 2 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and a fine.

10.  One year later he committed a copyright offence. He was sent to prison and that suspended sentence was also activated.

11.  In court, defence counsel said the defendant was married quite recently in 2010.  His wife lives in China and is dependent on the defendant.

12.  In Hong Kong, the defendant lives with his aged grandmother who is in her 70s.  That old lady is fragile and the defendant has to look after her.

13.  Counsel says the defendant had taken various jobs and was not earning much, but he had to support his wife and his grandmother.

14.  Counsel points out that the defendant co-operated with the police.  He is now remorseful and he will never commit this offence again.

15.  Counsel says the defendant has been a ketamine addict for about two years.  The defendant certainly was trafficking in that lot of dangerous drugs as found by the police in the premises, but the defendant would also take some from that lot for his own consumption.  There was never ever any specification in the defendant’s mind as to how much he would retain for his own use.

16.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs is always treated seriously, and ketamine abuse is quite prevalent now, especially among young people.

17.  The Court of Appeal has laid down strict guidelines for sentencing people trafficking in ketamine.  According to the case of Hii Siew Cheng, anyone trafficking in more than 10 grammes to 50 grammes of pure ketamine would receive imprisonment of 4 to 6 years.

18.  In this case, the quantity of pure ketamine is 31.49 grammes. According to that quantity, the starting point should be around 5 years of imprisonment.

19.  Counsel points out that the defendant himself, being an addict for two years, certainly would need some from that lot of ketamine as found by the police in his premises.

20.  I would not doubt the same that if the defendant needed any ketamine, he would take it from what he had.  But he had those drugs contained in seven bags and there was also an electronic scale inside the premises.  I am sure the defendant had that lot of ketamine for the main purpose of trafficking.

21.  If anyone else needed such drugs, the defendant certainly would give away the drugs as much as he could for any profit, so even though I accept the defendant would take some from that lot of ketamine for his own use if the need so arose, that lot of ketamine should still be treated as mainly and mostly for the purpose of trafficking.

22.  As such, I should not and cannot give him too much a discount for his claim that he would also consume some of the drugs, but I would reduce the starting point from 5 years’ imprisonment to 4 years and 9 months, and I would give the defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty.

23.  I thus send the defendant to prison for his conviction of trafficking in a dangerous drug for 38 months.