CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8 OF 2010
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty today to one charge of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs, two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs, and one charge of possession of dangerous drugs.
Charge 1 involved trafficking in ketamine, cocaine and nimetazepam. Charge 2 involved trafficking in 2,054 grammes of a powder containing 503.80 grammes of ketamine, 21 grammes of a solid containing 16.85 grammes of cocaine and 384 tablets containing the narcotic quantity of 2.51 grammes of nimetazepam. Charge 3 involved trafficking in 0.86 grammes of a powder containing 0.12 grammes of ketamine. Charge 4 was the possession charge, involving 0.30 grammes of a solid containing 0.18 grammes of cocaine.
The facts show that the defendant was arrested by police who were lying in ambush outside premises that he had rented and was using. Police searched the defendant and found in his right sock a plastic bag containing suspected cocaine. That was later the subject of Count 4. On arrest and caution for the offence of possession of dangerous drugs, the defendant said, “Ah Sir, it is for my own consumption.” He told police that he was the tenant of the room from which he had just emerged.
The defendant’s female companion was searched, and in her wallet was found a banknote containing suspected ketamine, and there was a further quantity in a plastic bag in her bra which also contained ketamine. This quantity of drug was the basis of Charge 3.
A search was made of Room C, Flat N, Cheong Yuen Building. In the drawers of the bed-frame were found 40 foil packs containing 384 tablets of suspected nimetazepam; various plastic bags containing ketamine; electronic scales; a plastic box containing ketamine; plastic bags; a tenancy agreement and a rental receipt. The rental receipt and the tenancy agreement were in the name of the defendant. There was also a money box containing cocaine.
On arrest and caution for these items, the defendant said, “I delivered the K-chai, 5-chai and cocaine for someone. I received $2,000 for it. It had nothing to do with my friend.” The defendant gave further details under caution back at the police station. He said he met a man called “Ah Kam” in Mong Kok. He told him he needed money, and gave Ah Kam his telephone number. Later Ah Kam called him to ask him to deliver drugs.
He was instructed to rent a flat to store the drugs. He would be told where drugs were near the vicinity of his flat and told to pick them up. The drugs would be stored at the flat pending Ah Kam’s instructions about delivery. The defendant was to be paid $1,000 to $2,000 a day.
He did as instructed and confirmed to the police that no one had the keys to the flat except he himself. His first delivery was in August 2009, and he received $2,000 from Ah Kam for that delivery. From that time up to the time of his arrest in September, he collected dangerous drugs about six to seven times from Ah Kam. Apart from cocaine, he was also given other drugs to deliver, such as ketamine and nimetazepam.
He told police that Ah Kam had paid him about 15 times, on average about $1,500 each time. He said on the day he was arrested by the police that the woman had come up to his flat and he gave her some ketamine for fun. Any drugs that he consumed would be deducted from his salary by Ah Kam. He confirmed that the electronic scales were used to weigh and repackage the drugs. He identified the keys as being the keys to the doors of the flat and to the money box containing the cocaine inside.
Analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed the quantities of drugs as set out in Charges 2, 3 and 4. The estimated retail value of the total quantity of drugs at that time was $196,770.
The defendant has a previous criminal record which is not similar. In February 2008 he was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and the sentence was a Probation Order of 12 months. In December of 2008, for misleading a police officer, he was convicted, and an additional Probation Order of 12 months, to be concurrent with the previous one, was imposed.
The defendant is aged 20. He was educated up to Form 4 level. He was unemployed at the time of his arrest, but had previously worked as a cook, earning $7,000 a month.
His Antecedents Statement noted that he had consumed dangerous drugs, marijuana, since he was 14 years old.
In mitigation, three letters have been put before the court. One was from the defendant himself expressing his remorse. It also explained his rather unhappy childhood experiences. He came from a broken family and was cared for by his grandmother and then by his father, who turned out to be a gambler, and he later deserted him. There was a letter from his mother, setting out the family background and also confirming that she had in fact tried to support him over the years. She considered that her son was easily influenced by peer group pressure. She expressed her support for him, and has been visiting him in prison. There was a third letter from Chuen Kam-tong, who is the Chairperson of the Christian Fellowship of Pastoral Care for Youth. He confirmed that their organisation had been working with the defendant and also with his family. In relation to this contact, the defendant says that he has become a Christian.
In considering sentence, I should point out that the only mitigation in this case, effectively, is his plea of guilty, although I also note his prompt co‑operation with the police and the fact that the information which supports Charge 1 came from him.
Mr Choy Wai-bond, counsel, who appears for the defendant, gave his family details and pointed out his deep degree of remorse. He also addressed the court in terms of the tariff sentences and submitted various ways that sentence could be approached.
The most serious charge at the present time is the 2nd charge, which involves what might be called a mixture of the drugs, but nevertheless, on the tariff guidelines, it appears to me that the range of sentence for Charge 2 should be from 9 to 12 years, for the narcotic quantities of the ketamine and the cocaine.
I effectively ignore the nimetazepam for this purpose, and I take a starting point of 11 years. Taking one-third discount, that brings the sentence to 7 years and 4 months.
In respect of Charge 1, taking into account the length of time the defendant had been effectively working for Ah Kam, and the number of times he had been paid and the number of deliveries that he had mentioned, I consider that an 11‑year starting point is appropriate for Charge 1 as well. Again, with one-third discount, that comes to 7 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
In respect of the trafficking in the ketamine on Charge 3, I take a starting point of 6 months, and sentence him to 4 months’ imprisonment.
In respect of Charge 4, I take a starting point of 9 months for the possession, and sentence him to 6 months’ imprisonment.
The sentences on Charges 2, 3 and 4 are ordered to run concurrently, but 1 year of the sentence on Charge 1 is to be consecutive to Charge 2, making a total sentence of 8 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.