COURT: Defendant pleaded guilty to a count of trafficking in dangerous drugs in the magistracy. The particulars of offence is that, on the 11th day of April 2023, in Tuen Mun, he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 8.18 kilogrammes of a solid containing 6.8 kilogrammes of ketamine.
The facts of the case are as such.
On the afternoon of 11 April 2023, Customs officers in plain clothes mounted an anti-narcotics operation in Tuen Mun. At around 1.35 in the afternoon, you appeared on Hoi Wing Road. You looked around nervously as you swiftly walked away. Officers, therefore, stopped you and conducted a body search on you. It was found from your rucksack six stripe-shape packets, each containing white powder wrapped in tinfoil and black plastic wrappings. These white powder were later confirmed to be a total of 8.18 kilogrammes of a solid containing 6.8 kilogrammes of ketamine.
You were arrested, and, under caution, you claimed that the rucksack belonged to you whereas the packets containing dangerous drugs belonged to ‘Boss’. You were tasked by Boss to take drugs back home for a reward of $5,000.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview under reminded caution, you claimed that Boss was the owner of a furniture shop and you were engaged by Boss to take the parcels back home, which was later found out to contain ketamine. However, you did not have documentary proof of the purported employment with Boss. You did not know the full name or the address of Boss. You do not have the name and address of the purported furniture shop. Moreover, you claimed that you met him rarely.
According to you, at the time of arrest, you were at your final year university studies in the United Kingdom. You occasionally returned to Hong Kong to undertake part-time jobs. And in February 2022, you returned to Hong Kong and started to work for Boss. You said the job nature with Boss was to collect and assemble furniture at different locations. You said you worked for Boss on your own. You received a monthly salary of HK$5,000.
You said two days prior to the arrest, Boss instructed you to collect a consignment at the ground floor of the building where you were intercepted. The only information provided by Boss is that there was a lot of table lamps. While you were told that the lamps belonged to a client, but Boss never told you the details of the order. You do not even know by which courier company the consignment would be delivered.
And by the morning on the day of your arrest, you arrived at the ground floor of the building. And by then, the consignment, comprised of nine cartons, had already been collected by someone but left unattended at the Ground Floor carpark. You noted that the consignment was destined to an address on the 2nd Floor of the building. Instead of delivering it to the second floor, you said you were instructed by Boss to unbox it at the common area of the 3rd Floor.
You further said that Boss suddenly asked you to take six stripe-shape packets from a hidden compartment inside one of the cartons. You were asked to take them back home while leaving everything else inside the consignment at the common corridor. You said you were told by Boss that the stripe-shape packets contained lamp accessories, such as screws. However, you were personally aware that the packets were, in fact, powdery in touch.
You found the whole arrangement strange and suspicious, but opted not to make further inquiries with Boss. You left the cartons unattended at the 3rd Floor corridor common area and left and was arrested by Customs and Excise officers.
Now, further investigation by the Customs and Excise officers transpired that on the day in question, a consignment was delivered to the building, which was destined to Room 224. The CCTV of the building captured a male receiving the consignment on the Ground Floor of the building at around 11.30 in the morning and left thereafter. At around noon, you appeared and took the consignment up to the 3rd Floor of the building. As a matter of fact, the building does not have a Room Number 224.
At the time of your arrest, you had a mobile phone with you. You surrendered that to Customs and Excise officers for their examination. In this phone, WhatsApp conversations with Boss and someone’s alias ‘Ah For’ were found. So far as the communication between you and Boss are concerned, they are as follows.
(1) Contrary to your suggestion that you worked for
Boss on your own and you received HK$5,000 monthly salary, the message conversation, in fact, suggested that you had repeatedly worked with other persons to ‘receive things’ for Boss and that Boss had repeatedly made payment to you over and beyond the HK$5,000 amount each month;
(2) Secondly, contrary to what you suggested, the building’s address was provided to you by Boss for the purpose of this consignment. It was seen from these messages that, back in February 2022, it was you who provided the building address to Boss;
(3) Whilst you claimed to perform ‘furniture works’ for Boss, however, throughout the whole of your conversation with Boss, no mention at all was made of any ‘furniture’ or ‘assembling’ tasks;
(4) At around 11.10 in the morning on the day of the arrest, you had informed Boss that something would be collected at 12 noon. At 12.09, Boss told you not to unbox the consignment yet. In reply, you said that someone would take image and photographs of the cartons. And later, you sent out pictures of the subject consignment and the relevant consignment invoice to Boss;
(5) Moreover, the contacted number as stated on the consignment invoice is your phone number.
Now, so far as the communication between you and Ah For is concerned, at around 10.40 in the morning on the day of arrest, that is before the time that you informed Boss things would be collected, you messaged Ah For asking him to collect something from the building at 12 noon. You further instructed Ah For to distribute the same item before 6 to 7 pm on the same day in return for $5,000 reward. At around 12.30, Ah For sent several pictures depicting the subject consignment and the invoice to you, and these photographs were identical to the ones that you sent to Boss.
The total amount of ketamine had an estimated street value of over 4.4 million at the time of the seizure.
You now admit and accept that, at the material times, you knowingly dealt in or with as well as possessed the aforesaid dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
You are now 25 years old. At the time of the offence, you were 24. You are single and you studied in England. In fact, you were in the final year.
Prior to committing the present offence, you were arrested on 10 October 2022 for trafficking in cannabis. After your arrest for trafficking in cannabis, you were granted police bail and later extended to court bail until 4 April 2023. On 4 April 2023, the case was adjourned to 10 May 2023. Your bail was extended until 10 May. It was during this adjournment you committed the present offence. So it is contrary to what one of your family members, namely, your parental aunt, had said that you were just doing this for one time and it would not be discovered.
And in any way, it is clear the present offence is not the first time you trafficked in dangerous drugs. The sad thing is you trafficked in cannabis, which is not that serious, then come to the occasion now you are facing, which is a much more serious trafficking and much larger quantity. I do not have a clue why you, who would had a bright future, would commit such an offence. And after you were caught for the first time in 2022, you did not think about it. You did not step back and think about your future there and then and committed the present offence while you were on bail waiting for the outcome of that trafficking in cannabis case.
In Sin Chung Kin, the Court of Appeal had said for 2,000 to 3,000 grammes of ketamine, that is, 2 to 3 kilogrammes of ketamine, the sentence should be no less than 18 and 20 years respectively. Where more than 3 kilogrammes of ketamine was involved, the starting point could exceed 20 years. Although the Court of Appeal said the increase in sentence should not be proportional to the increase in drug quantity and it would be for the court to pass such a sentence as was appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case. The Court of Appeal in that case concluded that for 5.12 kilogrammes, a starting point of 22 years adopted by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive. In this case, we are talking about 6.8 kilogrammes of ketamine.
As submitted by your counsel, I cannot put you in the category of a mere courier. You recruited another person to collect the parcel on your behalf. There is also some planning for this consignment to be delivered to the building. You were the one who provided a false address. You did that in order to prevent the parcel being received by some innocent person. In the circumstances, I cannot assess your role and culpability at the lowest end of the scale. For what you have said to the Customs and Excise officers under caution, which turned out not correct, I have great doubt in what is your involvement.
I take an initial starting point of 23 years. There is an aggravating factor in your case, which is you committed the present offence while you were on bail for a similar offence. I enhance my initial starting point by another year, so the starting point I now adopt is one of 24 years.
Apparently, you had a bright future. You had the support of your family members as well. The Court of Appeal has said personal background counts very little in serious offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs. I am afraid I cannot give you a discount for your background. The only mitigating factor in your case is your plea. I give you a one-third discount for that.
So the sentence I pass on you for the offence which you have pleaded guilty to is one of 16 years’ imprisonment.