COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking 2.86 kilogrammes of ketamine.
In the afternoon of 25 March 2014, the defendant was intercepted by a team of police officers at Tai Wo Hau MTR Station. Inside the rucksack carried by the defendant, the police officers found 12 packets containing the ketamine set out in the charge. The defendant admitted that he delivered the ketamine for another person. He earned a daily wage of $1,000.
The police estimated that the retail value of the ketamine was about $338,600.
The defendant is 18 years old. He has a clear record. He received education up to Form 3. He then studied electrical engineering at Vocational Training Council. Before his arrest he was a casual worker.
The defendant submitted several letters in mitigation. He committed this offence because of personal greed. He also wanted to buy a birthday present for his mother. He is remorseful and promises to study in prison.
His parents wrote to this court pleading for leniency. Both of them had to work for long hours and spent little time with the defendant. They pointed out that the defendant was simple minded and led to the present offence by dubious friends.
The total amount of ketamine is 2.06 kilogrammes. The sentence for trafficking this quantity exceeds the tariff set out in Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 case. In that case, for trafficking over 1 kilogramme of ketamine the starting point should be over 14 years’ imprisonment.
For trafficking in large quantities of ketamine, I have considered HKSAR v Leung Wai Man CACC 24/2007. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that a starting point of 27 years would be appropriate for trafficking 167 kilogrammes of ketamine. The Court of Appeal stressed that a sentencing court should exercise its discretion according to the circumstances of each case.
I have also considered Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 622 in which the Court of Appeal recommended a starting point of 18 years for trafficking in 2 kilogrammes of ketamine.
Trafficking is a very serious offence. Young age is not a strong mitigating factor.
Having considered the circumstances of this case, there is no further ground for reduction. I take a starting point of 18 years’ imprisonment for this charge. I deduct 6 years for his plea. I also give 6 months’ remission for his offer to assist the police, albeit fruitless.
I sentence the defendant to 11 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.