CRIMINAL CASE NO. 220 OF 2008
COURT: This is my sentence and the reasons for it.
The two defendants, whom I will refer to as D1 and D2, a husband and wife aged 22 and 21 respectively, pleaded guilty before me to a joint offence of trafficking in 793.35 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, Count 1.
D1 additionally pleaded guilty to an offence of possession of 11.23 grammes of ketamine contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Ordinance, Count 2.
The facts of the case were straightforward. The defendants were seen by police arriving in the car park of Lok Fu Estate in Wong Tai Sin, in a vehicle driven by D1. D2 alighted and, after D1 handed her a paper carrier bag, went by herself into a nearby block of flats where they resided.
Police then approached the vehicle and, after a brief struggle, apprehended D1. The vehicle was then searched and the drugs the subject of Count 2 were found concealed behind the vehicle’s control panel. D1 was then arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs.
D2 had been followed into the residential block by other police officers. She was intercepted in the lobby and searched. In the paper bag she was carrying were found the drugs the subject of Count 1. D2 told the police, when she was arrested and cautioned, that she intended to take the drugs home and “wait for orders”.
Regarding the offence the subject of the 1st count, the role of each defendant is substantially the same. They were acting together in the possession and transportation of the drugs and their joint possession was for the purposes of trafficking in the drugs.
The sentencing guidelines I apply are those in HKSAR v Lee Tak Kwan [1998] 2 HKC at 371, the offence being committed one month prior to the setting of new guidelines relating to the sentencing of traffickers of ketamine in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR7/2006.
So far as each defendant is concerned, I take a starting point of sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment. The only substantive mitigation advanced for either defendant is their plea of guilty. I say that bearing in mind that they have a 21-month-old daughter who is presently being cared for by the parents of the 1st defendant. That, however, while a sad circumstance given that the child will be without her parents for a number of years is, unfortunately, not an uncommon circumstance in offences of this sort where families can often be disrupted, and in my view is not in this case, and can rarely be, mitigation in offences involving large amounts of dangerous drugs.
Accordingly, each defendant is sentenced to 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment in respect of the offence the subject of Count 1.
So far as D1 and the 2nd count is concerned, I take a starting point of sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment. There must, however, be a considerable latent risk factor in the circumstances of this case and I enhance that to a starting point for sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. That, on the basis of his plea, is reduced to a final sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment.
Considering the totality of sentence, I do not think the facts of the 2nd count add to the overall culpability of D1 and I order that his sentence for the 2nd count offence be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of the 1st count offence.
That is a total sentence of 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment for D1.
(Proceedings from 12.31 pm not required)