HKSAR v. MA YUK MING

DCCC 691/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 691 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.   The particulars of the offence are that on 22 May 2016 outside Block 22, Shek Kip Mei Estate, Sham Shui Po, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 130 grammes of a powder containing 104.8 grammes of ketamine.

3.   The facts are straightforward.  On 22 May the police had information about a vehicle and targeted it.  At about 6.20 pm they saw the vehicle they were looking for outside Block 22.  They saw the defendant sat in the driver seat; he was alone.

4.   The defendant was searched, nothing was found on him.  However, when the car was searched, the police found a purple plastic bag in the glove compartment.  In that plastic bag, they found 13 resealable plastic bags and seven larger resealable plastic bags, all containing powder, the ketamine.

5.   The value of that ketamine in the 20 bags is estimated to be about $17,000.

6.   The defendant was arrested, and under caution he immediately made a full admission.  He admitted to the police he was selling the ketamine because he was in financial trouble and had no money.

7.   He later gave more details to the police under caution explaining that he had met a man in Shenzhen a few days prior to his arrest called Ah Yiu.  Ah Yiu discovered the defendant was short of money and offered him work.  That work involved the defendant coming back to Hong Kong on 22 May, the day of his arrest, and picking up a car that had been parked on a quiet road near Lok Ma Chau.

8.   The defendant was told by Ah Yiu on the phone that the keys to that car were on top of the tyre.  He was then told to drive that vehicle to Tsuen Wan.  He was told where to locate a plastic bag in a dustbin.  He then put the bag in the glove compartment. 

9.   He received further instructions and that was to drive to Sham Shui Po to wait for someone to pick up the vehicle from him.  He was to receive a reward of about one to two thousand dollars.  It was the police who approached the defendant before anybody else and he was arrested; caught red-handed as a drug courier.

10.   The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty and his full co-operation with the police after his arrest. 

11.   The defendant is not a man with a clear record.  He has one previous conviction which has nothing to do with drugs.  He was convicted of driving a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above the legal limit.  He was fined and disqualified.  This was in 2015.  That is his only conviction. 

12.   The defendant is now 36 years old and his mother is 67.  The defendant is the youngest of three siblings.  He was in fact very close to his father who unfortunately passed away in 2013 after a long period of illness.  At about the same time, the defendant tried to start his own business.  However, this did not go well and he ended up in financial difficulty leading him to be so desperate he committed this offence. 

13.   I have heard that actually after he left school, he went into full-time employment and has worked as a merchandiser and a shipping clerk until 2013.

14.   I have had a lot of letters from the defendant himself, every member of his family as well as cousins and an uncle and aunt.  There are two district councillors who write in support of the defendant and his family.  All those who know him well express shock that he has committed this offence.  All say it is out of character; some explain that perhaps his father’s death may have had a profound effect on the defendant.  In fact, he disappeared for a while after his father died.

15.   All say that he was obviously influenced by others and used as a drug courier.  He was susceptible to the thought of making easy money to solve his money troubles.  This may very well be true, but at the same time the defendant is 36 years old, he is not a 17 or 18-year-old who is much more immature and naïve, easily persuaded to commit such a serious offence.  At least the defendant does not try to make any excuses for himself. He accepts full responsibility for his actions.  He is very sorry in particular that he has disappointed his family and his mother and has promised them that he will not reoffend. 

16.   There are guidelines for trafficking ketamine, and the Court of Appeal has set them out in the authority of The Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  The Court of Appeal has said where between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, a 4 to 6 years’ starting point would be appropriate and where between 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, a starting point of between 6 to 9 years would be appropriate.  Mathematically speaking, here, 104.8 grammes would attract a starting point of 6 years and 7 months. 

17.   Defendant, please stand up.

18.   I will take the following into account and that includes the plea of guilty, obvious remorse, the fact that there is no similar criminal conviction relating to any drug offence as well as mitigation in full.  I have also taken into account the content of those letters written in support of your mitigation.

19.   Having taken all those relevant factors on board, I will take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.  You pleaded guilty, you are entitled to a discount of one-third, that is a discount of 2 years.  After that discount is applied, you are sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.