COURT: The defendant, Mr Li Yip-lung, 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 offence are that the defendant, on the 20th day of November 2012, outside Ground Floor, Lim Kit House, Lei Chung Uk Estate, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 0.99 kilogram of a powder containing 0.79 kilogram of ketamine.
Facts Admitted
At around 2045 hours on 20 November 2012, when the defendant was stopped by police officers outside Ground Floor, Lim Kit House, Lei Chung Uk Estate, Cheung Sha Wan, for inquiry, he put a black plastic bag on the edge of a nearby flowerbed. The police officers found that there were four sealed tinfoil packets inside the plastic bag which contained the dangerous drugs set out in the charge, ie 0.99 kilogram of a powder containing 0.79 kilogram of ketamine.
The defendant was arrested and cautioned for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In a video-recorded interview conducted subsequently, the defendant admitted, among other things, that he delivered the four tinfoil packets from Sheung Shui to Kwong Lee Road for a reward of $1,500. He collected the black bag containing the tinfoil at Sheung Shui at about 1900 hours the previous day. Although he had not seen its contents, he had been told they were “K Chai”. He knew they were dangerous drugs. He had not yet received the reward.
The estimated street value of the dangerous drug in November 2012 was $171,810.
Criminal Record
The defendant has two previous convictions of fraud for which he was sentenced to a probation order for 1 year on 9 May 2012.
Mitigation
The defendant is aged 19 and received education up to Form 5 level. After leaving school, he had engaged in the jobs of warehouse worker, waiter in restaurants, and delivery worker of pizza restaurants.
Counsel for the defendant points out that the defendant was brought up in a broken family. His parents divorced when he was aged 12 and he was looked after by his mother.
The defendant was asked by his friend, “Ah Wai”, to deliver the dangerous drugs in the present case. “Ah Wai” had asked him to do the job many times in the past and the defendant had refused him. When “Ah Wai” kept on asking, the defendant succumbed due to greed, and committed the present offence.
Counsel for the defence points out that the defendant was only a courier and the operation was not of a large scale. The defendant is now remorseful. Counsel submits to court mitigation letters of the defendant, his parents, his friends and a social worker. In his letter, the defendant expresses remorsefulness and gratitude for the support of his parents. He says that through reflection he has now come to know the harm of dangerous drugs to society and is determined to mend himself. He asks this court for leniency.
The parents say in their letters that the defendant was brought up in a single-parent family without proper adult supervision. They both blame themselves for failing to give sufficient guidance to the defendant and express support for his rehabilitation. They are of the view that the defendant committed the present offence out of greed and is now remorseful. They ask for a lenient sentence for the defendant.
The leader of the defendant’s voluntary social work team expresses in his two letters that the defendant was active in voluntary social work and is of a good nature. He only turned wayward because of bad influence from undesirable peers. The defendant was keen to learn and had worked as a coffee shop intern to learn how to brew coffee during his school summer vacation. He got along well with other people and had a sense of responsibility. He committed the offence out of greed and is now remorseful. The leader asks leniency for the defendant.
The friends of the defendant from primary school express in the letter their support for the defendant. They all have a good opinion of the defendant, saying that he is a person of good nature and is active in voluntary social work. They opine that the defendant committed the present offence out of greed and is now remorseful. They ask the court to be lenient to the defendant.
Counsel for the defence emphasises that the defendant was co‑operative with the police officers and pleads guilty in court. He asks the court to pass the least possible sentence on the defendant.
Sentence
It is sad to see a young man of only 19 years of age to commit such a serious offence. 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 and Another [2008] 3 HKC 323, if the quantity of ketamine being trafficked is of 600 to 1,000 grammes, the starting point should be 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment.
The amount of ketamine in the present case is 790 grammes. The starting point should therefore be 12 years 11 months’ imprisonment.
Although the defendant is only 19 years old, he is not in the category of extreme youth when different considerations will apply in sentencing. He committed the offence because of economic reason. This of course cannot be an excuse to offend the law and is certainly not a valid mitigating factor.
Although the defendant is only a courier, the operation of the dangerous drug syndicate cannot operate without his participation.
After considering all the circumstances, the court is of the view that there is no reason not to follow the sentencing tariffs, thus adopting 12 years 11 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.
Giving credit to the defendant for his plea of guilty and taking into consideration his relatively young age and co‑operation with the police, the court sentences him to 8 years 4 months’ imprisonment.
The probation order the defendant currently serving is discharged.