COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The 1st count is namely 13.83 grammes of a solid containing 9.36 grammes of ketamine and the 2nd count namely 279.16 grammes of a solid containing 225.95 grammes of ketamine and 16.30 grammes of a solid containing 15.60 grammes of cocaine.
Now the facts are that on 9 January 2022, police officers stopped the defendant as he was walking out from Room K holding a thermos bottle. Upon a search inside the thermos bottle were found the dangerous drugs which is the subject matter of the 1st count. Under caution, the defendant said that he was taking the drugs for sale.
The police armed with the search warrant, explained it to the defendant, after entering the flat with the keys found in the possession of the defendant. And upon entry into Unit C, which is a subdivided unit in the flat, the police then searched the premises and on the table in the room were found the dangerous drugs which is the subject matter of the 2nd count. Also found were two electronic scales and many transparent resealable plastic bags.
Under further arrest and caution, the defendant said all the drugs belonged to him and asked for a chance.
He was later interviewed on video and he admitted he rented the unit through his friend, Gwai Chai, because he was under the age of 18 at the time and he had rented the place in early December 2021.
The defendant claimed to live alone in the room and that subsequently he claimed that on 8 January, he was approached and the person suggested he could earn quick money. He then purchased the dangerous drugs and the packing equipment for $100,000 and took them back to the room. And when he was arrested, he was leaving his flat and intended to sell the dangerous drugs, the subject matter of Count 1, in a park in Kwun Tong.
The estimated street value of the drugs, the total amount of the drugs, was over $150,000.
The defendant is now aged 19 and has a clear record. Mr Wong in his written submissions in mitigation had urged this court to be lenient to him as he had had a tough childhood because his mother left the family. And that the defendant only received education up to Form 3. And he relied for a living on $2,000 a month pocket money from his family for living expenses. And that brings a question in my mind as to how he managed to get $100,000 to buy these drugs. Well, that is not for me to presume or assume anything.
Now, the defendant said he wanted to earn quick money because he wanted to help his brother repay a debt and therefore he succumbed to temptation.
As Mr Wong correctly pointed out, the tariffs for sentencing in trafficking in ketamine is laid down in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng in 2009 and for trafficking in cocaine, it would be similar to the tariff for heroin in Lau Tak Ming.
Also, I agree with Mr Wong that Charges 1 and 2 really arose out of the same set of facts. And so the amount of drugs, in effect, should be added together to calculate the sentence. And I also agree that the combined approach is the correct one because the amount of ketamine is much more than the amount of cocaine. And using the conversion test, I agree with both counsel that it would bring the starting point of the total amount of drugs to about 8 years and 8 months.
Now, in mitigation Mr Wong had also submitted letters from the defendant’s family and a pastor of the church. What comes across is that the defendant is very lucky, in fact, much more lucky than many young people in Hong Kong as he has the support of his siblings. The only person to blame for the commission of this offence is the defendant himself. Nothing to do with his hard life. His siblings had a similar hard life and they are properly employed.
So hopefully, the time in prison will give time to the defendant to reconsider his lifestyle and his aim in life. And perhaps he will not disappoint his siblings when he leaves prison and can become a good citizen contributing to the family.
As a starting point, I know that on the conversion test, it is one of 8 years 8 months for the total amount of drugs on both counts. However, I do take into account the defendant’s clear record and so I would give the starting point for the total amount of drugs as 8 years and 6 months. And I will give him the full one-third discount and so that will reduce the sentence on both counts to 5 years and 8 months.
And so I will sentence the defendant in this way. On the 1st count, he is sentenced to 5 years and 8 months and on the 2nd count, 5 years and 8 months. Both sentences to run concurrently.