HKSAR v. WONG CHUN KI

DCCC 477/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 477 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug". The dangerous drug involved is ketamine.

Summary of Facts

2.  About 1:45 p.m. on 27 March 2017, a police officer stopped the defendant for enquiry near Exit B of MTR Tai Wai Station, Shatin.

3.  Upon search, the police officer found in the left inner pocket of the defendant's jacket a plastic bag containing 39 resealable plastic bags, which contained a total of 102.30 grammes of a powder containing 72.70 grammes of ketamine.

4.  Under caution, the defendant claimed that he purchased these "K Chai" for his own consumption.  He admitted that he purchased the drug around 10:00 a.m. on that day in Mongkok at the price of $13,000.

5.  The defendant's residence in Tsing Yi was searched but nothing suspicious was found.

6.  The defendant now admits that he possessed the ketamine for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Mitigation & Sentence

7.  The defendant is now 22 and has 3 conviction records, none of which was drug-related.  Defence solicitor Ms. HO informed me that the defendant was educated up to Form 1 only.  He began to work as a cook in 2010, earning $7,000 per month.  The defendant resides with his parents and younger sister in Tsing Yi.

8.  In mitigation, Ms. HO submitted that the defendant had credit card bills to pay, so he foolishly agreed to act as a courier by delivering drugs in return for a reward of $7,000. Ms. HO clarified that all the ketamine seized was to be delivered to someone. In other words, no portion of the drug was intended for self-consumption.

9.  Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious) is no mitigating factor for committing a crime.  Having credit card bills to pay is not an excuse to resort to drug trafficking.

10.  A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that "drug trafficking" is a serious crime and that drug traffickers would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment even for fresh offenders, so that there is a deterrent effect.

11.  As a judge, I see day in and day out persons in my court being charged with "drug trafficking".  Many of them were just like the defendant – persons used by others as "couriers".  When people realize that the court would not treat drug traffickers lightly, there would be, hopefully, fewer willing "couriers"; thus making it difficult for criminals to exploit people with financial needs or other vulnerabilities.  Undoubtedly, most drug traffickers are "used" by bad persons (or so they claim).  That is the reason why we need to make people think twice before they agree to be "used".

12.  The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine (see  SJ v HII Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1).  For 50 to 300 grammes, the sentence ranges from 6 to 9 years' imprisonment.  The defendant trafficked in 72.70 grammes, applying a strict arithmetical approach, the appropriate starting point is 6 years and 3 months.

13.  In view of the defendant's age and being a fresh offender of drug-related offence, I adopt a starting point 6 years' imprisonment.  A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 4 years.   Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 4 years' imprisonment.