CRIMINAL CASE NO. 86 OF 2012
The accused pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
Briefly, the accused was stopped by the police on 11 October 2011 after he had alighted from a private car. At the time, the accused had with him a brown envelope. Upon search, the envelope was found to contain two resealable plastic bags which contained the drug particularised in the count, that is, 0.48 kilogramme of a powder containing 0.21 kilogramme of ketamine. The estimated street value of the drug was HK$52,800.
The accused was arrested, and under caution, he admitted trafficking in the drug in order to earn some money.
Mitigation
The accused is aged 28 and is single. He was educated up to Form 5 level. The accused had worked as a lorry driver for more than six years and he was in that employment at the time of the offence.
The accused had, in 2008, one possession of a dangerous drug conviction, in respect of which he was fined.
In mitigation, it was said that the accused was indebted to a financial company, and because the mother of his long‑term girlfriend was suffering from kidney problems at that time, the accused also contributed about $4,000 per month to his girlfriend’s mother on top of the 3,000 monthly contribution he gave to his own family. As such, Ms Cheng told the court that the accused committed the offence merely because he was in need of money.
After the arrest, the accused made full admission and he pleaded guilty at an early stage. Ms Cheng therefore asked the court to pass as lenient a sentence as possible.
The Sentence
In Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng and Another [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariff for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of between 6 to 9 years is called for.
In this case, the ketamine involved was 210 grammes. For this quantity, and considering the facts of this case, I am going to take a starting point of 8 years. The defendant pleaded guilty, and he will receive a one-third reduction for that. Other than his plea, there is nothing in this case which would warrant any further reduction in sentence. Needless to say, his financial difficulty was not an excuse for his commission of the present offence.
The accused is therefore to serve a term of 64 months’ imprisonment.