HKSAR v. Sin Kam Moon

HCCC 44/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 44 OF 2015

-----------------

------------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking 10.24 kilogrammes of ketamine, 51.34 grammes of cocaine, 1,011 tablets and another two fragments containing 8.93 grammes of bromo dimethoxyphenethylamine (“BDP”), 10.3 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 8.86 grammes of ketamine.

In the afternoon of 3 July 2014, the defendant was intercepted by a team of police officers while he was opening the iron grill of Flat 1, 8th Floor, Block D, Golden Lion Garden, Phase I, Sha Tin.

The police searched the premises and found the following items:

(a) In a compartment of a combination cabinet, 10 packets of dangerous drugs, and an electronic scale.

(b) In a compartment of a white wardrobe in the bedroom, 48 packets of dangerous drugs and 10 packets of tablets.

(c) Cash of $18,260 and four mobile phones.

The defendant admitted under caution that Ah Lung gave him money to rent the premises. He assisted Ah Lung to store and deliver the dangerous drugs. He was given $5,000 as a reward. He would also receive $600 to $1,000 for each delivery.

The police estimated that the retail value of the 10.24 kilogrammes of ketamine and the 51.34 grammes of cocaine was about 1.6 million.

The defendant is now 46 years old. He has two previous convictions which were in 1987 and 1984. He received education up to Form 1. He used to be a construction site worker but was unemployed since 2013. He is divorced with a daughter.

The defendant claimed that he owed Ah Lung a debt of $250,000. He committed the present offence to earn money partly for repaying the debt.

I adopt the approach in HKSAR v Wong King Kau [2010] 4 HKC 443 for sentencing, as there are several kinds of drugs.

I convert the quantities of cocaine, “Ice” and BDP to notational quantities of ketamine of comparable criminality. I then sentence the defendant on the basis of the notional total amount of ketamine.

According to my calculation, trafficking in 51.34 grammes of cocaine should be approximately equivalent to the criminality of trafficking in 217 grammes of ketamine.

For the 1,000-odd tablets there were three components of dangerous drugs in these tablets:

(a) 8.86 grammes of ketamine;

(b) 10.3 grammes of “Ice”, which is equivalent to 83 grammes of ketamine;

(c) According to the report of Dr Tang Wai-kwong, the potency of BDP is about seven to eight times of Ecstasy. Be that as it may, I am prepared to treat 8.93 grammes of BDP equivalent to 8.93 grammes of Ecstasy.

(d) The aggregate amount after conversion should be comparable to the culpability of trafficking about 100 grammes of ketamine.

The notional total amount of ketamine is, therefore, 10.56 kilogrammes.

The sentence for trafficking in this quantity exceeds the tariff set out in Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. In that case, for trafficking over one kilogramme of ketamine the starting point should be over 14 years’ imprisonment.

For trafficking in large quantities of ketamine, I have considered Leung Wai Man CACC 24/2007. In that case the Court of Appeal held that a starting point of 27 years would be appropriate for trafficking 167 kilogrammes of ketamine.

I have also considered Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 622 in which the Court of Appeal recommended a starting point of 20 years for trafficking over 3 kilogrammes of ketamine.

I have also considered other sentencing cases:

(a) in CACC 458/2011 a starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in 5 kilogrammes of ketamine;

(b) in CACC 75/2012, a starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment for trafficking 39 kilogrammes of ketamine;

(c) in CACC 474/2009, a starting point of 16 years for trafficking in 5.05 kilogrammes of ketamine.

Having considered the circumstances of this case, there is no further ground for reduction.

I take a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment for this charge. I deduct 7 years for his plea.

In the circumstances, I sentence the defendant to 14 years’ imprisonment.