CRIMINAL CASE NO. 48 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant pleads guilty to two charges 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 officers and when searched, he was found to be in possession of a number of packets of drugs.
Under caution, he said that the ketamine found in his pocket was for his own consumption, whilst the others were for delivery to others.
Upon analysis, the drugs were found to be 5,267.71 grammes of powder containing 3,715.95 grammes of ketamine.
Upon a search at a unit to which he had access, two packets of ketamine weighing 2,876.15 grammes of powder containing 1,256.57 grammes of ketamine were found.
There were other paraphernalia there, including two electronic scales and one vacuum sealer, and one bundle of wrapping bags, one bundle of ziplock bags.
The defendant is now aged 19. He has two previous convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs and possession of dangerous drugs, for which he was sentenced to the detention centre back in December 2007. He was released from custody in Sha Tsui on 29 April 2008.
By way of mitigation, I am told that the defendant came from quite a well-off family, but whilst he was in his early teens his family circumstances had taken a downturn because the father had extramarital affairs in China and the father’s business collapsed. It was under such circumstances that he turned to find comfort amongst his friends and started to take ketamine, which eventually led to his previous conviction and the present offences.
I am told that he has reflected upon himself and his own wrongdoings and is prepared to rehabilitate and equip himself with education whilst in prison.
In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account the facts of the present case, the drugs involved, and according to the tariff case of Hii Siew Cheng, for trafficking in ketamine weighing more than 1 kilogram, the starting point is over 14 years.
I have also taken into account the defendant’s guilty plea, his co‑operation and mitigation advanced, as well as the contents of all the mitigation letters submitted.
I have also referred myself to the following cases where a very large amount of ketamine is involved. In Tsui Chi Wah’s case, HCCC14/2010, that involved 1.69 kilograms of ketamine, Deputy Judge Andrew Chan adopted a starting point of 16 years. In the case of Wu Chai Chiu, HCCC102/2010, the 1st charge involving 1.73 kilograms, Mr Justice McMahon adopted a starting point of 16 years. In Lee Ming Yin’s case, CACC332/2010, the Court of Appeal considered 16 years’ starting point as appropriate for 2.2 kilograms of ketamine. In the case of Chu Kwun Fung, HCCC76/2010, involving 3.79 kilograms of ketamine, Mrs Justice Bokhary adopted a starting point of 18 years. In the case which I have already mentioned in Wu Chai Chiu, for the 2nd charge, which involved 4.6 kilograms of ketamine, Mr Justice McMahon adopted a starting point of 20 years.
In the present case, the total amount of narcotics involved in the two charges are 4.97 kilograms.
I consider a global starting point of 21 years appropriate. I am satisfied that there exists special circumstances in this case which justifies a lenient view to be taken of the facts.
I sentence him to a total of 12½ years’ imprisonment, to be apportioned as follows:
Charge 1, 10 years; Charge 2, 8 years. I order 2½ years out of the 2nd charge to run consecutively, making a total of 12 years and 6 months.