HKSAR v. TSUI MARTIN MATTHEW

DCCC 116/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 116 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and another count of possession of Part I poison.

2.  The facts reveal that on 19 October 2016 the police conducted an anti-narcotics operation in a factory building in Kwun Tong (“the Building”).  The defendant was intercepted outside a flat of the building.  Upon search, 39 plastic bags containing ketamine (E1) and a plastic bag containing 940 tablets of drugs (E2) were found in a shoulder bag carried by the defendant.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he had just bought the ketamine and nimetazepam for resale.

3.  Government chemist certificate confirms that:

(1) E1 is 30 plastic bags containing a total of 67.8 grammes of a solid containing 19.7 grammes of ketamine and 9 plastic bags containing a total of 19 grammes of a solid containing 5.28 grammes of ketamine;

(2) E2 is 884 tablets containing a total of 6.43 grammes of nimetazepam and some tablets containing clozaphine and phenazepam, which are Part 1 poison.

4.  In October 2016, the average price of ketamine was $356 per gramme.  The estimated price of the ketamine seized was $30,900.

5.  At the same period of time, the average price of nimetazepam was $39 per tablet.  The estimated price of this seized drug was about $34,000.

6.  The defendant is a 27-year-old single young man.  He has two previous convictions for possession of dangerous drug.

7.  In mitigation, the defendant’s solicitor, Mr Wong, tells the court that the defendant had his own business of repairing mobile phones, earning about $35,000 a month. 

8.  He was born in a well-off family.  However, his parents divorced when he was only 2.  Since then, he was taken care of by his mother alone, who was a professional, busily engaged in her profession. 

9.  As a result of lack of parental care, the defendant became wayward in his teens.  He went to a boarding school in Canada, but had to return to Hong Kong before he could finish his studies there.  Back in Hong Kong, he began to get into trouble with dangerous drugs.  Eventually, in order to earn quick money, he committed the present offence.

10.  I have read the mitigation letters written by the defendant himself and his mother.  The defendant asks for leniency of the court.  It appears that the defendant is now remorseful for what he has done.

11.  I have sympathy for the defendant’s mother, who is now blaming herself for giving insufficient care to the defendant.  She promises to give full support to the defendant when he re-enters society.

12.  Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal laid down sentencing guidelines for trafficking of ketamine in Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. 

13.  There is no sentencing guideline for trafficking in nimetazepam.  Since the case of HKSAR v Wong Kin Kau [2010] 4 HKC 443, the courts have often treated this drug no differently from ketamine.  I will also sentence the defendant on this basis.

14.  On Charge 1, I will sentence the defendant as if he was trafficking in 31.41 grammes of ketamine.  I adopt 57 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.

15.  The defendant indicated his plea on his first appearance in this court.  I will give him the full one-third reduction for his plea of guilty.

16.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1.

17.  On Charge 2, I take 6 months’ imprisonment as the starting point and reduce it by one-third to 4 months’ imprisonment.

18.  On the principle of totality, I order the sentences of both charges to run concurrently.

19.  The total term of the sentence is therefore 38 months’ imprisonment.