HKSAR v. NG YIU CHEONG

HCCC 70/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 70 OF 2015

_______________

_______________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
_______________

1.  This is the sentence of the defendant following his guilty plea to 3 counts of trafficking in ketamine which he entered in the Magistrate’s Court on 6 February 2015.

2.  He admitted that on 29 April 2014 near a car park at the Lai King Estate, Kwai Chung, he trafficked in 16.41 g of a powder containing 13.6 g of ketamine (Count 1); on 22 May 2014 outside 4 Jordan Road, Yau Ma Tei, he trafficked in 3.27 g of a powder containing 2.54 g of ketamine (Count 2); and on 22 May 2014 at Room B, Flat 1, 7^th Floor, New Lucky House, 298-306 Nathan Road, Yau Ma Tei, he trafficked in 638.84 g of a powder containing 512.33 g of ketamine (Count 3).  The total quantity of ketamine was 528.47 g.

3.  In the afternoon of 29 April 2014, police officers were carrying out an anti-drugs operation when they intercepted the defendant near the car park at the Lai King Estate.  They searched the defendant and found in his right trouser pocket a quantity of ketamine as specified in Count 1. They also found in his possession HK$20,020 cash. He was arrested and upon being cautioned said that the drugs were for his own consumption.  He was then released on police bail.  The drugs had a street value at the time of the offence of HK$1,936.  He subsequently admitted under caution that he possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

4.  In the evening of 22 May 2014, police officers were again carrying out an anti-drugs operation when they observed the defendant leaving Flat 1, on the 7^th floor at New Lucky House.  They followed him and saw him board the left front passenger seat of a private vehicle which was driven by another person.  The defendant put down a packet on the storage compartment inside the vehicle and the driver picked it up.  The police intercepted the defendant and the driver and retrieved the packet which contained a quantity of ketamine as specified in Count 2.  He also had HK$12,230 cash in his possession.  The defendant was arrested and upon being cautioned said that the drugs were ketamine and asked that they give him a chance.

5.  The police found keys in the defendant’s possession which opened the front door to Room B of Flat 1, 7^th Floor, New Lucky House.  When they entered the room there was another man inside.  They searched the room and found 18 packets of different sizes containing ketamine, the total quantity of which was as specified in Count 3.  They also found an electronic scale, a pair of scissors, half a straw, 31 empty plastic bags, HK$1,420 and RMB2,954 cash, and letters addressed to the defendant on the dining table.  The defendant was again arrested and upon being cautioned admitted that the drugs belonged to him and that they had nothing to do with the man inside the room.

6.  In a subsequent cautioned interview, the defendant admitted that he trafficked in drugs which were the main source of his income.  He admitted that he operated out of Room B where he lived and where he stored the drugs and equipment.  He admitted that the drugs found in the vehicle, he sold to the driver at $300, who had called him earlier to purchase the drugs.  He purchased all the ketamine from a person known as “Ah Wai” for HK$20,000 and he would then repackage the drugs into smaller packets of 3.5 g of ketamine which he would sell for $300 a packet.  The street value of the drugs seized on 22 May 2014 and as specified in Counts 2 and 3 was HK$78,337.

7.  The defendant is 41 years of age with numerous prior convictions commencing in 1997 for an array of offences involving criminal damage, possession of infringing copies of copyright works, perverting the course of public justice, assault and possession and trafficking of drugs.  I am informed that the defendant left school at Form 3, whereupon he worked as a transportation worker earning about $10,000 per month.  The defendant is single and at the time of these offences lived alone at Room B.  He claims he takes care of his elderly parents and this prompted him to trade in drugs.  It is submitted on his behalf, and it seems to be the case, that he has a drug addiction.  Notwithstanding his addiction, on the facts submitted, the drugs involved in this case were for the purpose of trafficking.  With this background and the circumstances of the case, there is very little meaningful mitigation that can be advanced on behalf of the defendant except for his plea of guilty.

8.  Clearly from the facts of the case as admitted by the defendant, he was a seasoned drug trafficker who operated from his room and sold drugs in the locality.  In his room, he had a large quantity of ketamine and related paraphernalia for packaging and selling the drugs.  He also had a sizeable amount of cash which was clearly from his drug trading activities.  I note that he was on police bail for Count 1 when he was apprehended by the police for Counts 2 and 3. 

9.  The sentencing regime for trafficking in ketamine is governed by guidelines laid down in S for J v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1.  I propose to deal with each count separately and then apply the totality principle.   

10.  The quantity of ketamine in Count 1 was 13.6 g for which I impose a starting point of 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.  It is reduced by one-third for the defendant’s plea of guilty to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. 

11.  The quantity of ketamine in Count 2 was 2.54 g for which I impose a starting point of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  It is reduced by one-third for the defendant’s plea of guilty to 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

12.  The quantity of ketamine in Count 3 is 512.33 g for which I impose a starting point of 11 years and 1 month’s imprisonment.  It is reduced by one-third for the defendant’s plea of guilty to 7 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. 

13.  The combined total of the three sentences is 11 years and 8 months’ imprisonment which will be adjusted taking into account the totality principle to 9 years’ imprisonment.  I apportion the sentences on the basis that the sentences on Counts 2 and 3 will be made concurrent and therefore result in a sentence of 7 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.  The sentence on Count 1 of 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment will be made consecutive as to 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment to the concurrent sentences on Counts 2 and 3, and thereby result in a sentence on the defendant of 9 years’ imprisonment.