|
HCCC 392/2025
[2026] HKCFI 2159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 392 OF 2025
-----------------
-----------------
| Date: |
23 March 2026 at 9.46 am |
| Present: |
Ms Winnie Mok, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
|
Ms Emily Cheung, instructed by Chan Ching Man & Co, assigned by DLA, for the accused |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 416 grammes of a solid containing 356 grammes of ketamine. He has also admitted to the facts which is very simple in that sometime around 10.30 pm, he was intercepted and a recycle bag was found in his hand. And upon a search, the drugs which is the subject matter of the charge was in the recycle bag. He was therefore arrested and cautioned and said he needed money and sold the ketamine to support his family.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he told the police that he lived with his girlfriend since October 2020 and her two sons. He was a laundry worker earning about $16,000 a month and the estimated street value of the ketamine at the time was about HK$203,000.
The defendant was aged about 32 at the time of the offence. He is now, I think, 34. He has a record, previous record and his last offence was in 2010 for assaulting a police officer. Apart from that, there were two for possession of dangerous drugs in 2008 and 2009 and trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2010. Since his discharge from prison,
he had not committed any other offences. His discharge was about, I think about 10 years ago.
Now, in mitigation, Ms Cheung has set out in detail the defendant’s role as a courier and there is no evidence that he had participated in anything more serious than being a courier.
As far as aggravating factors are concerned, he has got a previous record of drug trafficking and possession. And that is something that I had deeply considered, whether I should enhance the sentence because of this.
Now, as has been noted, sentencing is an art. And in considering enhancement, one must look at, apart from the facts of the case, also the background of the defendant.
It is clear to me that he, the defendant, had sought to work hard to support his family. He not only has a regular job as a laundry worker, he also had taken on part-time work to increase his income. So really this is a portrait of a man who is trying to better himself for the sake of his family.
I have also considered the letters that has been written that indicated that the defendant is sincere in his remorse. I am also impressed by the letter from his parents. And his mother is in court and has stated that the family is encouraging and supporting him and will continue to do so. So in that sense, the defendant is a lucky man.
Ms Cheung has correctly pointed out that the sentence for ketamine is as laid down by the Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng in 2009, and the sentencing guideline is that between 300 grammes and 600 grammes of ketamine would warrant a sentence of 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment.
The present case involving 356 grammes of ketamine, Ms Cheung has also correctly worked out that the sentence would be 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment taking into account the one-third discount.
For the plea of guilty, the term of imprisonment will merit one-third off, which would bring it down to 6 years and 4 months after plea.
As I said, I did consider enhancement but in this case, I am not going to enhance the matter because of what I have stated. And so this defendant will go to prison for 6 years and 4 months.
And the defendant has indicated also that he is going to work hard whilst in prison and hopefully apply for a forklift license and taxi license and help him find a job after he is released, and I hope that he is successful in that.
|