COURT: The defendant is convicted after trial of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. He was intercepted by Customs and Excise officers after he presented his member card to an account which he had opened about three months prior, and his ID card, and collected a parcel, which after arrival in Hong Kong had been examined and found to contain dangerous drugs. Upon analysis the drugs were found to be 2,877 grammes of a powder containing 2,333 grammes of ketamine.
Upon arrest, he claimed to have no knowledge of the drugs. He agreed to take part in a controlled delivery operation to make and receive phone calls from the person who asked him to deliver the drugs. The outcome was not successful.
By convicting him, the jury rejected his claim of lack of knowledge and found him to be a knowing party to this drug trafficking.
The defendant is now aged 30. He has one previous conviction. The date of sentence was 18 April 2019 for one charge of criminal damage. He received 1 month imprisonment suspended for 18 months. He committed the present offence two months thereafter.
By way of mitigation, it was advanced on his behalf that albeit that he was convicted after trial, some discount should be given to him for his assistance in taking part in the controlled delivery and also the fact that a limited extent of the facts were not in dispute during the trial.
In sentencing the defendant, I have taken all these into account. According to the tariff laid down by the case of Sin Chung Kin, trafficking in 2 kilogrammes and 3 kilogrammes of ketamine attracts a starting point of no less than 18 and 20 years respectively for a courier. For the 2,333 grammes of ketamine involved in the present case, I adopt a starting point of 18 years and 6 months. The significant aggravating feature here is that the defendant had facilitated the importation of drugs from Malaysia into Hong Kong.
For the international factor, with this amount of drugs an enhancement of 2 years is appropriate. And therefore, with the enhancement, it is 20 years and 6 months. For his participation in the controlled delivery, bearing in mind that it was unsuccessful and the degree of risk he exposed himself and his family to is minimal, I shall give him a discount of 8 months. In view of the length of the present sentence, I am not minded to activate the suspended sentence. Therefore, this defendant goes to prison for 19 years and 10 months.