COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The 1st count, he is charged with trafficking in namely 2.62 kilograms of cannabis in a herbal form, and the 2nd count, he is charged with trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 2.46 kilograms of a powder containing 2.1 kilograms of ketamine.
The facts show that on 27 April last year, a co‑defendant in the case, whom we shall call the 1st defendant, who was aged 18, was behaving suspiciously on a pavement and drew the attention of Customs officers who were conducting an anti‑narcotics operation in the vicinity.
Shortly after, a private car came up and the 1st defendant got into the car and the car drove away. The car then was followed by the Customs officers, and eventually arrived at a place near the Yoho Midtown in Tuen Mun. The 1st defendant and the present defendant in this case alighted from that vehicle. The 1st defendant then intended to hail a taxi, at which time he was approached by the Customs officers.
The 1st defendant ran away. Eventually he was caught, and inside the bag which the 1st defendant was carrying were found metal cans in which, when opened, were found the cannabis buds which is the subject matter of Count 1.
The defendant, upon seeing what had happened to the 1st defendant, then ran to Yuen Long Road and hailed a taxi. Customs officers then eventually managed to intercept the taxi, and the defendant was seated in the rear passenger seat carrying a shoulder bag. Inside the shoulder bag were found several plastic bags containing the ketamine which is the subject matter of the 2nd count.
The defendant under caution admitted that the white powder he was carrying was a dangerous drug, but he did not know the type of drug it was, and that he would be told via telephone where to deliver the drugs and to whom. In a video‑recorded interview the defendant subsequently admitted that he had picked up his friend, the 1st defendant, and given him the plastic bag containing the milk powder cans. He knew that those cans contained cannabis buds.
The defendant further admitted that he would be given a reward of RMB400 for delivery of the drugs. He also said that he had collected the cannabis and drugs from a male in Shenzhen. A check of the defendant’s travel movement record from the Immigration Department showed that the defendant was a frequent visitor to China and he last entered Shenzhen on 27 April, which was the day of the arrest, at 9.12 am, and returned to Hong Kong at 11.38 am on the same day.
The street value of the two lots of dangerous drugs was estimated at about HK$594,360.
The defendant is aged 46 and has one previous record which was for a very minor offence, so basically I will treat him as a man of clear record.
As Mr Haynes has very accurately pointed out, there are sentencing guidelines in relation to trafficking in ketamine, which is the more serious of the two types of drugs, and this was in the Court of Appeal in the case of Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323, where the Court of Appeal said that for trafficking in over 1,000 grammes of ketamine, a sentence of 14 years upwards is recommended.
Mr Haynes has said everything he can possibly say on behalf of the defendant, but as we all recognise, trafficking in dangerous drugs is an offence which not only affects the immediate parties to the transaction, but has a vicious effect on the community as a whole. Particularly, ketamine is a very popular drug amongst our young people.
The defendant himself has a young son. Children who get hooked on ketamine create problems for their families and very often they turn to crime to feed their habit. Our law enforcement agencies are fighting a constant losing battle, and with cross-border travel so easy nowadays, it is particularly a bad situation when drugs are imported into Hong Kong via the border at Lo Wu. So it is hardly surprising that the Court of Appeal recognises this and says this is a factor which should be taken into consideration by a sentencing judge when considering the appropriate sentence.
This court appreciates that the defendant has been a good citizen for the past 46 years of his life. His wife testifies or speaks of his being a good husband and father, and explains that the defendant found himself in a financial predicament basically because of the acts of his brother‑in‑law.
In Hong Kong we have many people in financial distress. That does not mean that it is an excuse for anyone to turn to drug trafficking in order to earn easy money. It is a sad fact that the courts have to protect the community and have to hand down a sentence that will not only reflect the horrific nature of this crime, but also to try and deter others from being tempted to commit the same crime in the future.
Having considered the sentencing guideline, as I have said earlier, I consider that the total starting point for both lots of drugs would be in the region of 16 to 18 years.
I will sentence the defendant in the following way. In Count 1, for the cannabis in herbal form, I consider that an appropriate sentence would be one of 12 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 8 months because of his plea.
In relation to the 2nd count, the ketamine, I consider that an appropriate starting point for that amount would be 16 years’ imprisonment.
By taking the lower starting point of the range I have just mentioned, I have taken into account his clear record and his age and his background. I consider that because of the aggravating feature of the cross-border trafficking, the normal thing is to add 1 to 2 years onto the starting point sentence. In this case, I will take the lesser of the two and add 1 year to the 16 years’ starting point, which would make it 17 years, and because of the defendant’s plea, it is reduced to 11 years and 4 months.
Having considered the totality principle, I will make the sentence in the 2nd count concurrent with the sentence in the 1st count. So the defendant goes to prison for 11 years and 4 months in total.