The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and was committed to this court for sentence on one charge of trafficking in 295.97 grammes of a solid containing 244.14 grammes of ketamine. Before this court he confirmed his plea and his agreement to the prosecution’s Summary of Facts.
Facts
The facts are familiar and straightforward. In the afternoon of 1 June 2022, police officers armed with a search warrant conducted an anti-narcotics operation at the defendant’s home in Kwai Chung. Entrance was gained when the door was opened by a domestic helper.
The defendant was sitting in his bedroom at the time. The police officers found from a drawer of the cupboard inside the defendant’s bedroom the dangerous drugs, which was the subject matter of the charge, contained in 50 transparent plastic bags and an electronic scale. Later, two paper packets containing ketamine were also found above the cupboard.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that he trafficked in dangerous drugs to earn money for his family. He said that the two paper packets were for his own consumption.
In the later video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he was asked by a person called ‘Ah B’ to pick up the ketamine in a park in Shek Pui Street and he was promised $50 for each ketamine transaction.
The ketamine contained in the plastic bags and the two paper packets formed the subject matter of the trafficking charge. According to the Summary of Facts, the street value of the ketamine was $161,008. The defendant admits that he possessed 244.14 grammes of ketamine for trafficking.
Antecedent
The defendant was born in Hong Kong and is now 46. He was educated up to Primary 5 and was a construction worker before his arrest. He is married with a young daughter and a young son.
Between June 2001 and August 2018, the defendant had five previous court appearances with a total of seven convictions, five of which were drug-related. He was last discharged from prison on 1 April 2019 after having served a 12-month sentence for dangerous driving, drug driving, and possession of a dangerous drug.
Sentence
The sentencing approach for the offence of trafficking is laid down in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, which is further clarified in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho. One of the more salient features of this approach is the moving away from a rigid, arithmetical approach with starting points and sentences based purely on narcotic quality to a more discretionary approach involving an assessment of the offender’s role and culpability. However, the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved remains the primary determinant in sentencing.
Following the sentencing approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, the first step for this court is to identify the relevant guideline bands. As to this, I note that the present case, which involved a total of 244.14 grammes of ketamine, the applicable guideline band is 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment (Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng). By a pure arithmetical approach, trafficking in 244.14 grammes of ketamine would attract a notional sentence after trial of 100 months’ imprisonment.
Secondly, concerning the defendant’s role and culpability, based on the limited information contained in the Summary of Facts, I am prepared to treat him as a courier or a storekeeper.
Thirdly, in view of my acceptance of the defendant’s role and culpability as that of a courier or a storekeeper, the appropriate starting point is also 100 months’ imprisonment.
Fourthly, although the defendant has a number of drug-related convictions, only one of them was trafficking and that was in 2005, which was 19 years ago. Therefore, I do not treat him as a recidivist. Besides, I can see no other factors bearing upon the notional sentence after trial, which might justify an enhancement of the starting point.
Finally, having fully considered the mitigation put forward by Mr Leung, who I trust has said all that could be said on the defendant’s behalf, I consider that the only mitigating factor which may reduce the defendant’s sentence is his timely plea.
After deducting the customary one-third discount to plea and rounding off the figure, the defendant’s sentence is reduced to 66 months’ imprisonment.
In conclusion, the defendant is sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment.