CRIMINAL CASE NO. 34 OF 2012
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
He was intercepted at a car park, found to be in possession of a packet of drugs which, on analysis, was 13.17 grammes of a powder containing 6.01 grammes of ketamine. A later search at the defendant’s residence resulted in a number of packets of drugs found in a mooncake tin. There was a total of 1,049.74 grammes of a powder containing 463.15 grammes of ketamine.
There were also paraphernalia associated with trafficking of drugs, including resealable plastic bags and an electronic scale.
He admitted to store the drugs on behalf of a dealer.
The total retail value of the ketamine found was in the region of $115,000.
The defendant is now aged 23. He has one previous record for possession of dangerous drugs back in 2007, and he was placed on 24 months’ probation.
It is advanced on his behalf by way of mitigation that the defendant committed the present offence because he was not aware of the seriousness of its nature.
Prior to the commission of the present offence he has a stable full-time job as an assistant decoration worker and a part-time job as a party organiser. It is also submitted on his behalf that he originally plans to marry his fiancée by the end of this year, but because of the present offence that plan has to be delayed. Counsel submitted that the defendant, knowing that he would be incarcerated for a period of time, has already enrolled in a course to further his studies whilst in remand.
In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account the nature of the offences, the kind of drugs involved, and the sentencing guidelines. I have also taken into account his guilty plea and mitigation advanced by counsel and contents of the mitigation letters handed up today.
According to the guideline laid down by the case of Hii Siew Cheng, for trafficking in ketamine weighing between 300 to 600 grammes, a starting point of 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment is to be adopted. Now, taking into account the total amount of drugs involved in the present case - that is, the drugs in both of Counts 1 and 2 - I adopt a global starting point of 10½ years’ imprisonment.
He is entitled to one-third discount for his timely guilty plea.
He is sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment, apportioned in the two charges as follows:
Charge 1, 1½ years; Charge 2, 7 years; to run concurrently.