COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to Counts 3, 4 and 5 which are for trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely ketamine. In Count 3, he has pleaded guilty to trafficking in 27.79 grammes of a powder containing 22.35 grammes of ketamine. In Count 4, the drug was 13.74 grammes of a powder containing 11.45 grammes of ketamine and, in the 5th count, the drug was 1,332.94 grammes of a powder containing 882.16 grammes of ketamine.
The 6th count, which he also pleaded guilty to, is for conspiracy to traffic, this was in relation to his conspiring with Cheung Kwok-po between a date unknown or about the 27th day of December 2011 and the 27th day of May 2012, in Hong Kong, together with another person, to unlawfully traffic in a dangerous drug, namely ketamine.
This case started with an undercover police operation. This operation was in the Tai Po area in order to gather criminal intelligence and evidence against drug and triad activities. The undercover police officer, who did a brilliant job in this case, met the defendant on 30 March 2012 and, as a result of this, on two occasions, as particularised in Count 3 and 4, the defendant sold him the drugs which are the subject of the counts.
As for the 5th count, on 27 May, the undercover officer arranged to meet the defendant again at the premises and on this occasion, police officers then searched the premises and found the dangerous drug which is the subject matter of the count. Also found at the premises were empty resealable plastic bags, dehumidifiers, scales, soda powder, etc.
After the arrest and caution, the defendant was interviewed and the defendant then made a full confession. The defendant admitted that he was employed by a person, Ah Po, as a drug distributor for about five to six months. Ah Po had arranged the premises for him to do the packaging of dangerous drugs and taught him how to divide the drugs. The defendant was also taught to add soda powder to the ketamine before dividing it into smaller packets.
The drugs which were seized by the police in Counts 3, 4 and 5 had an estimated retail value of about HK$163,505.
In relation to Count 6, the defendant fully admitted and confessed that he was recruited by someone called Ah Hoi to be a drug distributor, and under the direction of Ah Po, he had brought dangerous drugs to the premises for less than 10 times. Each time he would get 2,000 grammes of ketamine and mix it with 500 grammes of powder and then he would repack it into 250 gramme portions and then bring the repackaged drug to Ah Po and he would receive $5,000 reward each time.
The defendant is aged 19 and has a clear record. It is a tragedy for the family of the defendant, particularly, it appears to me, that the defendant comes from a family where he is loved by his parents. The parents are both busy working people and I do accept that the defendant was immature and was led astray by his peers.
It is clear from the letters of mitigation submitted that the parents of the defendant, despite these offences, do still love him and care for him. So I have no doubt that with his parents’ support, the defendant’s determination, which he said through counsel, to turn over a new leaf would ultimately be successful.
It is also clear from the mitigation letter submitted by Mr Wong, who is a supervisor in the Hong Kong Children and Youth Services, who has known the defendant since 2008, that the defendant basically is a kind and concerned young man and that the defendant had volunteered to do voluntary service in the year 2010 to 2011. It is clear, therefore, to me, that the defendant is truly remorseful and that is why he fully confessed to his transgressions.
I accept also in mitigation that the defendant is not the mastermind in these offences, but he was used in order to fulfil an important function and the defendant was tempted by easy money.
In assessing sentence, as Mr Ching pointed out, guidelines have been laid down by the Court of Appeal in relation to trafficking in ketamine in the case of Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC page 323. The guideline sentencing laid down is that for trafficking in ketamine of between 10 to 50 grammes a sentence of between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment is suggested.
In this case, in Count 3, the defendant was trafficking in 22.35 grammes, so I consider an appropriate starting point to be one of 4½ years, which is reduced by one-third because of his plea, to 3 years’ imprisonment.
On the 4th count, the amount was 11.54 grammes which would merit a starting point of 4 years reduced by one-third to 2 years and 8 months.
In the 5th count, according to the guidelines, for trafficking in 600 to 1,000 grammes of ketamine would merit a sentence of 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment. The amount on the 5th count is 882.16 grammes which I consider would merit a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 8 years 8 months because of his plea.
On the 6th count, which is the conspiracy to traffic, it is a serious role that the defendant was doing in this conspiracy. I consider a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment to be appropriate. That will be reduced to 8 years’ imprisonment because of the defendant’s plea.
I have to consider the totality principle. After considering the totality principle, for Count 3, the defendant is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and for Count 4, he is sentenced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment which will be served concurrently with Count 3.
As for the 5th count, 4 years’ imprisonment will be served consecutively to the term in Counts 3 and 4 and the rest concurrently, giving a total of 7 years’ imprisonment for Counts 3, 4 and 5.
In relation to the 6th count, I do take into account the fact that the only evidence in this count is from the defendant’s confession. Therefore, the sentence should reflect that in order to encourage other people to make a full confession because the court will view this as a true example of remorse.
So after considering the totality principle, for the sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment in Count 6, 3 years will be served consecutively to the sentence of 7 years for Counts 3, 4 and 5, making a total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Hopefully, the defendant will keep to his promise and his instructions to Mr Ching that he will study whilst in prison. If the defendant behaves himself, then he may be entitled to early release at the discretion of the CSD.