HKSAR v. SIU MAN HING

 DCCC230/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 230 OF 2010

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 158 grammes of a powder containing 86.34 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The facts are that in the afternoon of 10 November last year, the undercover officer had called a telephone number and was offered five bags of ketamine at $11,000. The unknown male directed the undercover officer to meet in McDonald’s Restaurant in Mongkok. Upon arrival, the undercover officer was told on the phone to go to the toilet of McDonald’s Restaurant. The defendant followed the undercover officer into the toilet and the defendant then took out a bag of ketamine from his right front trouser pocket and handed it over to the officer. The defendant then asked the police officer for $11,000, and $11,000 of marked money was handed over to the defendant.

3.  The defendant was intercepted when he left the toilet. Under caution and subsequently in the video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he was instructed by an unknown person called Ah Dee to collect the ketamine and deliver it to the McDonald’s Restaurant. Upon arrival at McDonald’s Restaurant, the defendant said he called the customer at the phone number provided by Ah Dee, and he then subsequently met up with the customer in the toilet and was handed $11,000 after giving the ketamine to the customer. And he said he was offered $500 as a reward for delivery of the ketamine. The street value of the ketamine was estimated at approximately $18,900.

4.  The defendant is aged 19 and has one previous of possession of dangerous drugs in 2008 when he was fined. There is nothing unusual or remarkable in the background of the defendant, and his mother pleads for a lenient sentence basically because she said that she was a cleaner and has not fully taken care of the defendant properly.

5.  The defendant is aged 19 and he should be able to think for himself, especially if he has already been in court once before in 2008 on a charge of possession of dangerous drugs. His mother should not blame herself because she has to work to provide for the family. I am told by Mr Man that the defendant committed this present offence because he is only a trainee hairdresser and he wanted to earn extra money. This is very often the case for many of the young people who come before these courts because they want to earn easy money, so they take the risk of being convicted of such a serious offence and spending many years in prison.

6.  There is nothing remarkable in the background or the case to merit any special treatment. The Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for sentencing in trafficking of ketamine in the case of Hii Siew Cheng, HCCC121/2005 and it is recommended for trafficking of between 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment is recommended.

7.  In this present case, the defendant is found with 86.34 grammes of ketamine, and that would merit a starting point of 6 and a half years’ imprisonment. And because the defendant has pleaded guilty, he is entitled to the one-third discount and he is therefore sent to prison for 44 months.

8.  My very efficient clerk has noticed that I have said 44 months when in fact I should have said 4 years 4 months because 6 and a half years, one-third off is 4 years 4 months. I made a slip of the tongue, so I correct myself. It is actually 4 years 4 months. Thank you.