COURT: Li Ka-tsun, on 14 February 2022, you pleaded guilty to one count of possession of 2.05 grammes of herbal cannabis, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 and also to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. And by so doing, you admitted trafficking in 5,198 grammes of fluorodeschloroketamine which, as a designer drug, is comparable in effect to ketamine.
You were observed coming out of Room 2906 of the Pentahotel in Hong Kong in San Po Kong on 24 September 2020. When you were stopped and searched, the cannabis which is the subject of Count 1 was found in your trouser pocket. You readily admitted it was yours and for your personal consumption.
A search of the room discovered the drugs which form the basis of the charge under Count 2. They were in a rucksack and divided between 24 resealable plastic bags as well as in the safe.
On arrest and caution, Mr Li, you tried to suggest that you did not know what those drugs were and that you were simply assisting somebody else for a reward of $2,000. A further search within the room recovered more drugs and some drug paraphernalia and that was from a safe. You had the passcode to the safe.
Under further caution, you denied knowing what those drugs were and you maintained they also belonged to somebody else whom you were helping.
The street value of the ketamine was $3,048,422. That is a huge amount of money for somebody, Mr Li.
By reason of your plea of guilty, you now accept that you did know that what you had in your possession that day was ketamine and that you were trafficking in it.
You are just 22 years of age and single. You completed Form 4 education only and I am told by Mr Woon that you started your working life by trying to qualify as a plumber and electrical engineer but then worked as an apprentice painter and thereafter as a surveyor’s assistant. At the time of your arrest, you were earning $12,000 a month as a casual renovation worker. You come from a humble working class background and you contributed $4,000 of your salary to the household expenses. You have just one previous matter on your record and that is for theft in 2016 for which you were placed on probation.
Mr Woon tells the court in his written submissions that you were taking the herbal cannabis for stress. For that possession, I consider a sentence of 6 weeks appropriate under Count 1.
As for the ketamine, you admit that you agreed to traffic in this drug out of greed to make quick money, because you and your family had suffered financially as a result of the pandemic.
Mr Woon says that you agreed to act as a storekeeper for a reward of just $2,000 and that is a reward of just $2,000 for storing drugs that were of a value of over $3 million. You took a huge risk for a minimal financial gain.
That mitigation provided by Mr Woon in his written submissions does not sit comfortably with the facts to which you have agreed and which were read out by Ms Tam. You say you were in financial difficulty and were to be rewarded with just $2,000 for storing over $3 million worth of drugs and yet you booked into the hotel room for three days. If it were the case that you were simply storing someone else’s drugs, there would be no need to divide up any of those drugs or to send photos of those drugs to a third party. The total amount of the drugs to be held for that person would simply be in one place, presumably the rucksack.
You had 24 resealable plastic bags within that rucksack containing 4.99 kilogrammes of ketamine but you also had a further 208 grammes of ketamine which was found inside a safe to which you had the passcode. Other items were also recovered from the safe which suggest that drugs were to be divided up and also consumed.
Mr Woon very sensibly accepts on your behalf that there is no mitigation in these circumstances which can reduce the inevitable sentence which I must pass, although he urges upon the court the standard guideline and no enhancement by reason of your role as a storekeeper.
The case of HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 provides sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine up to 1 kilogramme at which point sentencing is at the discretion of the court. I bear in mind that this authority suggests that the starting point for trafficking is in up to 1 kilogramme of ketamine after trial is 14 years. You have admitted to trafficking in over five times that quantity.
In HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 627, it was suggested that the starting point for trafficking in between 2,000 and 3,000, so 2 to 3 kilogrammes, of ketamine should be no less than 18 to 20 years respectively. Where more than 3 kilogrammes is involved, the starting point after trial could exceed 20 years but, of course, the increase in sentence does not necessarily have to equate to the increase in quantity on the same mathematical basis as before.
It is for the court to pass a sentence which is appropriate in all the circumstances as was said in HKSAR v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 and in Attorney General v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125.
In Sin Chung Hung (Kin?), the trial judge adopted a starting point of 22 years for 5.12 kilogrammes of ketamine which the Court of Appeal did not find to be manifestly excessive. I therefore consider a starting point of 22 years after trial on Count 2 to be appropriate in all the circumstances of this case. There are no aggravating features which would alter that starting point.
Unfortunately, there is no other mitigation which can reduce the sentence I am about to pass, save for the one-third discount which of course you are entitled to because of your early plea.
Accordingly, Mr Li, you will go to prison for 4 weeks on Count 1 and for a period of 14 years and 8 months on Count 2. The sentence on Count 1 to be wholly concurrent with the sentence to be served on Count 2 and you will therefore go to prison for a total period of 14 years and 8 months.