CRIMINAL CASE NO. 143 OF 2012
COURT: The defendant, Mr Chan Kin-wa, pleads guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
The particulars of the offence are that the defendant, on the 28th day of October 2011, outside McDonald’s restaurant, Shop 1A, 1st Floor, Wah Fu (1) Shopping Centre, Wah Fu (1) Estate, Aberdeen in Hong Kong unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 0.75 kilograms of a powder containing 0.19 kilogram of ketamine.
Facts Admitted
At 1838 hours on 28 October 2011, the police searched the defendant outside McDonald’s restaurant at Shop 1A, Wah Fu Shopping Centre. Inside a yellow paper bag the defendant was carrying, the police found a black and white paper box which contained a paper cover. Inside the paper cover there was a transparent resealable plastic bag containing 0.26 kilograms of a powder containing 0.06 kilograms of ketamine. Inside the yellow paper bag there was another box containing a transparent resealable plastic bag. Inside the transparent resealable plastic bag there was 0.49 kilograms of a powder containing 0.13 kilograms of ketamine.
On being arrested and cautioned for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the defendant said, “I received $1,000 from a person who asked me to bring ‘K‑chai’ over and give it to someone.”
In a video-recorded interview subsequently conducted, he admitted, inter alia, taking the dangerous drug, which he knew to be ketamine, on the instruction of his friend from Kwun Tong to Wah Fu Estate to wait for his friend’s call. The reward was $1,000. He was arrested before his friend called, and he had not yet received the reward.
The street value of the ketamine in question was $82,500.
Criminal Record
The defendant has two previous convictions, of which one was dangerous drug related. He was last convicted of an offence of possession of a dangerous drug on 4 June 2009 and was sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre.
Mitigation
The defendant is 30 years old, single, received Secondary 1 education, had worked as a decoration worker and a delivery man. He has been a storekeeper since 2000, and his job also required him to drive a lorry to deliver goods.
Counsel for the defendant tells the court that although the parents of the defendant have divorced, they have deep concern for the defendant and are in court today to support him.
The defendant committed the offence because of financial problem. At that time, his father had just retired, and he was told by the company where he was working that he might be laid off. He needed the money to support the family.
The defendant has asthma and is otherwise in good health. Counsel for the defendant submits four mitigation letters to court. The first one was written by the defendant himself. He says in it that he is the only son in the family and his income was not steady, and he stupidly committed the offence for quick money. He is now remorseful and he begs for leniency.
The letters written by his father and mother describe the defendant as a good-natured person and a filial son. The letter written by the defendant’s former employer says that the defendant was a good employee who got on well with his colleagues. They all ask the court to treat the defendant leniently. Counsel for the defendant also asks the court to pass as lenient a sentence as possible.
Sentence
The Court of Appeal has set down clear sentencing guidelines for the offence of trafficking in ketamine. According to the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323, if the amount of ketamine involved is 50 to 300 grammes, the normal starting point is 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.
The amount of ketamine the defendant trafficked was 190 grammes. According to the tariff, the starting point should be 7 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
Although the defendant committed the offence out of his desire to help the family financially, the court must point out that this can never constitute an excuse to offend the law, and is certainly not a mitigating factor.
The court is of the view that there is no reason why the court should not follow the tariffs set down. The court therefore adopts a starting point of 7 years 8 months’ imprisonment. The only mitigating factor is the defendant’s plea of guilty.
Giving him credit for that, the court sentences him to 5 years’ imprisonment.