COURT: The two defendants, in this case, are D1, Shek Ka-chun and D2, Kwok Tsz-kin. D2, Kwok Tsz-kin, had pleaded guilty in the magistracy and the charge was committed to the High Court for sentence. D1 originally denied the offence, but he decided to plead guilty before the trial. I have consolidated these two cases for sentence.
D1 faced one charge of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug, namely ketamine. There is no specified amount.
D2 faced one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. There are four types of drugs involved. The most significant item was more than 2 kilogrammes of ketamine. There were also smaller amounts of “ice”, “cocaine” and what is known as bromodimethoxyphenethylamine.
The defendants pleaded guilty and admitted the consolidated summary of facts. What had transpired was that D2 admittedly was a courier of drugs and he would, under instruction, pick up ketamine from different locations and deliver them to different persons. On 14 April 2013, D2 had contacted D1 and they made arrangements to meet at Tai Wo Plaza for the delivery of ketamine.
Police officers who were investigating had seen both defendants going into a public toilet, so they waited outside. D1 informed D2 in the toilet that he could not contact the recipient of the ketamine. He asked D2 to put a bag of ketamine inside the water tank. D2 did as suggested. After that they left the toilet, then they were intercepted by the officers and they were searched.
In the shoulder bag carried by D2 the officers found the four types of drugs referred to in the charge. The two defendants were arrested. D1 told the officers that he was asked by someone to come to the toilet to take a bag of ketamine and that particular bag was hidden inside the water tank. D2 admitted that the drugs in his shoulder bag belonged to him and they were for selling to others.
The police officers went to the said water tank and retrieved the drugs. It was a bag of 0.19 kilogrammes of ketamine. In fact, on the previous day, that is 13 April, D2 had met D1 and delivered to him a bag of ketamine similar in size and weight as the bag found in the water tank.
D1 was born in 1993 and he had a previous similar conviction in 2009. He was sentenced to the Detention Centre. Counsel for D1, Mr Luk, stated that the defendant had not been totally idle after 2009. He had found work in a fast food shop. It was pointed out that the defendant was only 19 at the time of the offence. He was educated up to form 3 only. The defendant had just lost his mother, who passed away in early June this year. He felt remorseful for the crime now.
Mr Luk had submitted a number of letters to the court, that included a letter by the defendant himself and one from a social worker. Mr Luk said that the defendant committed the crime under the influence of bad peers, but he had been cooperative with the police and had decided to plead guilty as early as the pre-trial review stage of the case.
Mr Luk stated that although there was no information about the actual weight of the drugs for the incident on 13 April, however, his instruction was that the bag was of similar nature and weight as the bag found in the water tank. Mr Luk suggested that consideration of sentence could be made on such a basis, hence the two bags of ketamine would be about 380 grammes in total. Counsel asked the court to be as lenient as possible. Counsel for the prosecution, Mr Lau, agreed that the court could take it that the two bags of ketamine would be of similar weight.
As to D2, Kwok Tsz-kin, he was also born in 1993. He has a clear criminal record. He also studied up to form 3. His counsel, Mr Leung, emphasised that the defendant was only 19 at the time of the incident. He had a particularly tragic childhood as his parents had abandoned him and his elder brother for a period of time, he was only looked after by Madam Wong, who was kind enough to take him in, but later he had to return to stay with his grandparents. Against this background, he was particularly attached to his elder brother, so he was extremely upset when his elder brother passed away in March this year, which was about a month before this offence.
Counsel said the defendant was vulnerable and he needed money for his grandfather and to make contributions to the funeral expenses. He was tempted by his bad peers and he foolishly took the risk. He is now remorseful, as he should have known better.
A number of letters were also submitted asking for the court’s leniency, including a letter from the defendant himself, one from Madam Wong and another one from her son who is a serving police officer and had known the defendant for a long time.
Mr Leung pointed out that the defendant had rendered useful assistance to the police. He had given witness statements and was prepared to testify against D1 in his trial. In terms of his assistance to the police, Mr Lau for the prosecution agreed that D2’s statements are helpful in preferring the charge against D1, more so on the event of 13 April.
Having gone through the principles as stated in the various authorities, Mr Leung said he would propose an overall discount of 45 per cent for his client. Mr Leung said further that he could not find any useful information regarding the rather unusual drugs of - in short form - bromo, but he said that in principle, the sentencing court could ignore the insignificant drugs in a cocktail situation such as the present one.
I have considered all that was said by counsel on behalf of the two defendants and read the letters asking for leniency.
For D1 it appears that there is no disagreement in principle that the basis of sentence could be the two bags of ketamine of similar weight, that would mean about 380 grammes of ketamine. However, the reality remains to be that the actual amount of the first bag was not known. But I am prepared to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt that it was the case. Having considered the authorities on the tariff for this type of drugs, I shall use 9 years as the starting point and give the defendant the full discount of one third.
The sentence is therefore 6 years.
For D2, just for the ketamine item alone, the sentence will be a serious one as 1,000 grammes would already attract 14 years upwards of imprisonment. However, I agree that the court is not to take a strictly mathematical approach in reaching the starting point and having considered all the circumstances, I am prepared to adopt 20 years as the starting point for all the drugs involved in the charge. This, in my view, is already a very low starting point considering the amount and the variety of drugs involved.
Regarding the discount for the plea and the provision of assistance to the police, I accept that the defendant had provided valuable assistance to the police in the prosecution of D1. It could be said that his witness statements and his willingness to testify may well be instrumental to D1’s guilty pleas.
In the circumstances, I shall reduce the 20-year sentence to 11 and a half years. That will represent about a 42 per cent discount.
Both counsel had emphasised the relative young age and the family problems faced by the defendants. While the court has every sympathy for what has happened to them and their family, this court is unable to reduce the sentence further on account of these personal factors. I just hope that the defendants will do as they have now promised to their family members, to turn a new leaf. I hope they will try to study or learn a skill under the supervision of the Correctional Services and not to waste their lives any more.