CRIMINAL CASE NO. 16 OF 2012
COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Both counts involve ketamine, and the amounts were about 250 and 34 grammes respectively.
The defendant admitted the Summary of Facts. Put simply, the police had mounted an anti-drugs operation on 23 February 2011 against the defendant’s premises. The police’s entrance was obstructed initially and they had to force open the door.
When they finally gained entry, they found and retrieved the drugs and bags from down the rear lane outside the bathroom of the unit. There were also other drug-related items found inside the unit.
The defendant and Chim Shek-kei, who were the two persons then inside the unit, were both arrested and charged.
A few months later, while still on bail, the defendant was found by the patrolling officer to have kept drugs, the same kind - that is, ketamine - in his shoe. He was also arrested and charged for that offence.
While giving evidence for Chim, the defendant admitted to be the one who had closed the door and discarded the drugs. Frankly speaking, it was hard to accept totally that the defendant was doing the throwing by himself without any assistance, but be that as it may, to discard potential evidence in such a manner must be an aggravating feature, and the fact that the defendant committed a similar offence while on bail would be another factor the court has to consider in sentencing.
The defendant is now 22 and he has only a relatively minor previous criminal record. Mr Leung asked the court to be lenient as the defendant was only around 20 at the time of the offences. He was greedy, and was used by “Ah Shing”. It was also said that the defendant’s mother had left the family earlier because she was a gambler and was heavily in debt.
The defendant said he had already had a good reflection on his wrong deeds and would change for the better. It is very unfortunate that the defendant, only 22, is now facing a long sentence, but you have only yourself to blame.
I have read the father’s letter to the court and I have every sympathy for him. It must be very painful for him to lose a wife to gambling and his young son to drugs and trafficking of drugs. But I am glad to see that he was determined to still give support to the defendant.
In terms of sentence, I was minded, because of the circumstances of this case, to deal with the two sentences separately and then make adjustments on the totality. That approach could end up in a longer term. But I have finally decided to take a combined approach and use the total amount of drugs, which would be about 280-odd grammes, to consider the starting point under the first offence.
According to the tariff, this amount has not yet reached the 9‑year level. However, in view of the fact, as I mentioned, of the discarding of evidence and committing a similar offence while on bail, I would raise the starting point to 9 years for this amount of drugs. Had I not considered the relative young age of the defendant, the upward adjustment would have been higher.
I shall give the defendant one-third discount due to his pleas.
That makes it 6 years.
As to the 2nd count, I shall, for clarity’s sake, notionally still assign a starting point. That is 5 years. I shall reduce one-third, and the term would be 3 years 4 months.
I shall order the two terms to run concurrently, so the sentence is 6 years.
I hope the defendant will use his time in custody constructively. There are many programmes and training offered by the Correctional Services that are available if you are willing to learn.