CRIMINAL CASE NO. 97 OF 2009
COURT: The Defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 23 March 2009 to two counts of trafficking and one count of possession of ketamine. The total narcotic quantity for the two trafficking charges was 415.62 grammes. The narcotic quantity of the ketamine for the possession charge was 52.24 grammes.
Today the Defendant confirmed those pleas and confirmed also the facts that he admitted at committal. Those facts show that the Defendant was intercepted by a Customs officer who was on duty when the Defendant appeared at the lift lobby of a residential building in Tsuen Wan. He was searched and found to have nine Ziploc bags of suspected DD on him. He was arrested and cautioned and, under caution, said the drugs were his and that he was taking them to someone. Those drugs are the subject of the 1st charge.
A search was made of premises in the same building to which the Defendant had keys. This was on the 2nd floor. Two large bags of dangerous drugs were found there with minor packing paraphernalia. Again, the Defendant was cautioned. He said the dangerous drugs were his and that he was to take them to someone. Those drugs are the subject of the second trafficking charge.
The Defendant was then taken to his residence elsewhere in Tsuen Wan, for which he also had a key, and there the Customs officers found five Ziploc bags containing the dangerous drugs the subject of Charge 3. The Defendant admitted that he had those drugs for his own consumption and he was charged with the 3rd charge of possession in respect of those drugs.
The Government Chemist later analysed the suspected dangerous drugs and confirmed the quantities of ketamine as set out in the charges. The total street value was $74,178.64.
The Defendant has a criminal record which starts with a trafficking case in 2004 for which he was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment. In 2006, he was found guilty of possession of dangerous drugs and served a term in Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.
The Defendant is 24 and single. I was advised, in mitigation, that he had been motherless since the age of 4 months and his father, although now supportive, earlier failed to supervise him adequately because of the long hours that he was working. Further, in 2002, when his father remarried, a child was born of that marriage. That child had health problems which caused the parents’ attention to be diverted to the child and so the Defendant was not supervised properly at that period. Consequently, he was influenced by undesirable characters. This led to the drug offences in 2004 and 2006, and also the much more serious case which is before me today.
I am advised that the Defendant is disappointed with himself and feels that he has failed both himself and his family and he vows to change his ways. He says he will study in prison and try and improve himself so that he is able to lead a productive life when he leaves prison.
Although the Defendant told police, in his antecedent statement, that he was not a drug abuser, this is contradicted by the fact that he served a term in Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and also by his admission, through counsel, that he has been taking ketamine since he was 18 years old.
This case occurred after 6 June 2008 and comes under the new ketamine guidelines [Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng & Another CAAR7/2006]. I note that the only mitigation of serious value is the Defendant’s pleas which were early pleas and for which he is entitled to a one-third discount.
I have considered the charges and the quantities. The combined quantity of narcotic in respect of the trafficking charges is 415.62, which is within the band of 300 to 600 grammes. The range of sentence is 9 to 12 years imprisonment and I adopt a global starting point of 10 years.
In respect of each of Charges 1 and 2, I take a 10-year starting point and give the full one-third discount for the pleas of guilty. The sentence on each of those charges will be 6 years and 8 months.
In respect of the possession charge, I take a starting point of 4 years and giving the full discount for plea, I sentence the Defendant to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
Taking totality into account, I order that the sentences for Charges 1 and 2 shall run concurrently with each other and that 4 months of the sentence on Charge 3 shall run consecutively to the sentences on Charges 1 and 2. The total sentence, therefore, is 7 years’ imprisonment.