CRIMINAL CASE NO. 330 OF 2010
You were the subject of an undercover operation by the police which commenced when an officer called you and used a phrase which was believed to indicate that she wanted to buy a quantity of ketamine. You asked that officer, a lady, whether she wanted to buy what was called “perfume”, meaning ketamine, and said that there were presently 12 units available at a price of $18,000.
Later, that officer arranged to buy that quantity, and you told her that payment on the spot was required. You told her to go to a place in Tuen Mun. On 20 February 2010 two police officers went there by car, and there was a series of telephone conversations with you as to where they should park.
In due course, you and another male approached the police officers, and you said you wanted to see the cash first. Arrangements were made to hand over the drugs at a later time, and the parties then separated.
After that, you phoned the female officer and told her to go to Tuen Mun on the following Monday, where you said you would hand over 12 units. You asked her to prepare $17,500, having given a discount of $500. You also told her that you hoped she would continue to buy, and that you would offer bulk purchase discounts. You said you anticipated getting more stock in 30 days.
There were more telephone contacts between you and the police officer, initiated by you, and you told her where the transaction would take place - on some back stairs or inside a building. At your instigation, she agreed to continue buying from you, and you offered to reserve 30 units for her at a price of $42,000, saying it was good grade ketamine.
There were further telephone calls. Eventually, an arrangement for the first transaction was made, and it took place on the back stairs of a building in Tuen Mun. In this transaction, the officer paid you $17,500 and was supplied by you with the ketamine referred to in the 1st charge. This is 284 grammes, and is represented by Charge 1.
Later, you called the female officer, and after some discussion you said that you would reserve those further units, and on 1 March 2010, you told the officer to go to a place in Tuen Mun to make the second transaction. You were offering to supply 28 units for $38,500. You gave instructions as to the route to be used and where to park and where to meet, and then you picked up a bag when you met, and handed it over to one of the two officers whom you met, and it contained the 28 packets of white powder which were the dangerous drugs referred to in the 2nd charge, 631.20 grammes of ketamine.
You asked the male officer whether he wanted more next time, and said you could supply it at a lower price, and at that point you were arrested.
Thus it is that you trafficked in a total of 915.55 grammes of ketamine.
Emphasis is placed on the weight of the dangerous drugs because, as you know, the courts in Hong Kong apply sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal for different types of dangerous drugs according to the weight of dangerous drugs being trafficked. This is to achieve uniformity in sentencing, which of course is just and proper as between different cases.
However, as you heard me say during the course of some discussion with your counsel earlier, that desire for uniformity must not be allowed to get in the way of justice for the individual offender, and so each case must be looked at on its own merits to determine the proper sentence.
There were two transactions here, but they were so close in time and in their circumstances that effectively, they amount to one course of dealing, so I will look first at the overall sentence which should be applied to your case, and then assign it as I judge to be appropriate to each of the charges.
The bracket that your case falls into in the guideline case for trafficking in ketamine - that is, for a total quantity of 915.55 grammes - is 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment, and that is for quantities of 600 to 1,000 grammes.
You were plainly an active trafficker in these dangerous drugs; whether as part of a greater trafficking ring or not, I do not know. Although you were dealing with police officers, which of course you did not realise, you were doing so industriously, not as a casual drug trafficker.
It is, in my judgment, appropriate to reflect your relative youth in sentence. At the age of 17, and under 17 at the time of the offence, you are not to be regarded as very young. It is not a matter of mitigation, but I do consider that I can reflect that youth to some degree in the starting point for sentence. If it were not for your young age, I would take a starting point overall of 10½ years’ imprisonment.
However, in the circumstances, I consider 10 years’ imprisonment to be appropriate as an overall starting point. From that is to be deducted one-third to reflect your plea of guilty.
That is your main mitigation. I have listened with care to the mitigating circumstances advanced on your behalf, to the pleas of your family and your former teacher. I am impressed with your own expression of remorse and your desire to set new goals in your life. I will try to reflect that in your sentence.
10 years reduced by one-third is 6 years 8 months. I propose to reduce that overall term by a further 4 months to reflect your further mitigation, and whilst that takes your case out of the uniformity of the guideline, I have, as I have already said, taken into consideration the fact that the circumstances of individual cases are not to be overwhelmed by a desire for uniformity.
So it follows that your overall sentence will be one of 6 years 4 months’ imprisonment, and I shall apply that as appropriate between these two charges. However, I am not going to do so mathematically. I am not sitting here with a calculator working out sentence. It is a matter of judgment.
These were two transactions, even if in one course of dealing, and the sentences should be consecutive to each other. In that way, I can achieve the proper overall term.
On Charge 1 I impose a term of 4 years’ imprisonment.
On Charge 2 I impose a term of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1.
That makes a term overall of 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.