HKSAR v. KONG SZE SHING

DCCC400/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 400 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in 110.53 grammes of ketamine.

2.  On 18 February this year, 2011, police officers were carrying out an anti-dangerous drugs operation in Langham place, Argyle Street, Mongkok.  Just before 9 o’clock, one of the officers saw the defendant at Level 6 and the defendant looked nervous.

3.  The defendant was seen to open one of the doors of the staircase and enter the staircase and he was there intercepted by the officer.  He was there found in possession of the dangerous drugs, the subject of the charge, which were in 11 plastic bags.  He was also in possession of an electronic scale, a bundle of plastic bags, two plastic spoons and a plastic cup.

4.  He admitted that the drugs found in his possession were ketamine.  He said that he had just become unemployed and wanted to earn some money.  In a video recorded interview, he told the police that he had met a person called ‘Ah Kin’ after he had become unemployed, and he was asked by ‘Ah Kin’ to deliver ketamine in order to earn some money.

5.  The defendant was instructed to purchase a new mobile phone for communication, and on 18 February 2011 he was called up and asked to go to collect the ketamine, the subject of the charge, from Tsuen Wan.  He there collected a big bag of ketamine from a flowerbed and he then went to Langham Place to repackage the ketamine into smaller bags.

6.  He was awaiting instructions for delivery when he was arrested by the police.  He said that he would sell each small bag of ketamine at $800 and he would get a reward of $2,000 from ‘Ah Kin’ for the sale of every 18 small bags of ketamine.  The defendant had just over $5,800 in his possession when he was arrested and the street value of the drugs was $16,743.

7.  I am told in mitigation that the defendant has a clear record, he is 30 years of age and he is married, his wife is 25 and she works as a waitress.  He has a son who is 19 months old.  He was educated to Level 3 standard.  I am told that his father died quite suddenly in August 2002 and the defendant was of considerable assistance to his mother in shouldering the family financial burden.

8.  The defendant was in regular employment until February of this year, in fact until a few days before the commission of the offence.  He worked as cook in a café and was earning $14,000 per month.  It was because of the loss of that job that out of desperation he decided to go along with this trafficking in dangerous drugs.

9.  I am told that both he and his wife are now bankrupt. The defendant comes from a supportive family background, many of whom were in court today, and letters of support have been submitted from the family members, the defendant and from an ex-employer. 

10.  For the defendant and his family the conviction of this offence is a major tragedy.  However, trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious matter.  The abuse of drugs in Hong Kong is a major social problem, particularly amongst young people and ketamine for younger persons would appear to be the drug of choice, and it is for those reasons that the Court of Appeal have laid down very stringent guidelines for dealing with persons found trafficking in drugs.

11.  As counsel has acknowledged, the quantity of drugs in this case would put the defendant in the category for sentencing of imprisonment for between 6 and 9 years.  The leading authority for trafficking in ketamine states that for trafficking in quantities of between 50 and 300 grammes of ketamine, the sentencing range would be 6 to 9 years. 

12.  The quantity of drugs in this case is 110 grammes, which is more than twice the minimum limit for that sentencing band. 

13.  Having heard the mitigation, the clear record of the defendant and the domestic background, what I am prepared to do in this case is to sentence him to a period of time at the lower end of that band.

14.  I propose to take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.  I give the defendant full credit for his guilty plea and that will be reduced to 4 years. 

15.  As your counsel will no doubt to tell you, that is a lenient sentence given the quantity involved in this case.