HKSAR v. SIU FAI TAT

DCCC827/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 827 OF 2010

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Offering to traffic in a dangerous drug" (Charge 1) and a charge of "Trafficking in a dangerous drug" (Charge 2). The dangerous drug involved is ketamine.

Summary of Facts

Charge 1

2.  About 9:15 pm on 7 May 2010, in a fast food restaurant located at Tsuen Wan Centre Phase 2, the defendant offered to sell some "K chai" to PC 54086 (PW2). PW2 agreed and the defendant asked him to go to the washroom.  In the washroom, the defendant asked PW2 to pay $2,400.  PW2 refused and requested to see the drug first.  The defendant told PW2 that the "K chai" was with a friend.  He then led PW2 to find his friend.  About 9:35 pm, as they walked along On Yin Street, the defendant told PW2 that he did not want to conduct the transaction.  PW2 revealed his police identity and asked the defendant to produce his identity card.  The defendant refused and struggled.  PW2 and his colleagues subdued and arrested him.

Charge 2

3.  After the defendant was arrested, the Police went to a 7-Eleven store also located at Tsuen Wan Centre Phase 2 to conduct an investigation.  The CCTV recording of the store showed that at 9:01 pm, the defendant placed a white packet under a table and then left.  At 9:38 pm, the store keeper (Madam FUNG) disposed the white packet in a litter bin.  Having seen such footage, WPC 1048 searched the litter bin and found a packet of suspected dangerous drug ("E1"). Madam FUNG confirmed that she found E1 underneath a table in the store earlier that evening and disposed it in the litter bin.

4.  In a subsequent interview, the defendant admitted under caution that the male captured in the said CCTV footage was him.  E1 belonged to him and he concealed it under a table in the store.  He purchased E1 from an unknown person in Mongkok at $1,800.  He took it to Tsuen Wan in order to sell it to an unknown buyer at $2,300.

5.  A Government Chemist confirmed that E1 contained 23.07 grammes of a powder containing 19.68 grammes of ketamine.

Mitigation & Sentence

6.  The defendant is now 20 and has 2 previous convictions, both of which are drug-related.  He was recently sentenced to the DATC on 30 July for a "trafficking" offence (STCC 2986/2010).

7.  The defendant came to Hong Kong from the mainland at the age of 6.  His parents divorced when he was 12.  He and his elder brother then resided with his mother.  After completing F.4, the defendant worked in a godown for about 1.5 years before he was laid off.

8.  Mr. SO informed the court that the defendant's elder brother is a 2^nd Year student studying Accounting at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, whereas his mother operates a 1-person store selling cosmetics.  Mr. SO submitted that the defendant wanted to earn some quick money to help his family without considering the legal liability and consequences of drug trafficking.  His brother's plan to join the Police Force has to be abandoned now owing to the defendant's convictions.

9.  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.  The sentencing tariff for trafficking in ketamine is laid down in SJ v HII Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  For 10 to 50 grammes, the sentence ranges from 4 to 6 years.

10.  I accept Mr. SO's submission that Charges 1 and 2 arose from the same facts. Based on the evidence before me, I find there is a genuine possibility that the defendant intended to sell PW2 the packet of ketamine which he had hidden under the table in the 7-Eleven store.  For whatever reasons, he decided to back out at the last minute.  On this basis, I will treat both charges as the same transaction.

11. A total of 19.68 grammes of ketamine are involved in this case. Hence, I adopt a starting point of 4.5 years for Charges 1 and 2. One-third discount is given for the guilty pleas, reducing the sentence for each charge to 3 years. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further discount. The sentence I impose for each charge is 3 years imprisonment.

12.  For reasons stated above, I treat both charges as the same transaction.  I therefore order the sentences for Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently.  The total prison term for both charges is 3 years.