HKSAR v. Ng Lee Fu
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 357/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 October 2015.
|
HCCC 357/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 357 OF 2015 -----------------
------------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 28 August 2015 to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the dangerous drug being ketamine. More precisely, it was 245 grammes of a powder containing 194 grammes of ketamine. Today, before me, the defendant confirmed his plea and confirmed also the facts to which he had pleaded guilty at committal. Those facts show that the defendant was seen by the police, walking with two other men, the defendant carrying a purple plastic bag. As the police approached them, the three men fled in different directions and the defendant threw away the bag during his flight. The defendant was caught but the other two men escaped. The police picked up the bag and on search of it found a transparent plastic bag containing ketamine. The defendant was arrested for trafficking and, under caution, claimed it was for his own consumption and asked for a chance. He was in possession of $584 in cash at the time. Subsequent analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed that the drug was 245 grammes of a powder containing 194 grammes of ketamine. In a video-recorded interview, the defendant claimed that at the material time, he had just purchased the ketamine for his own consumption from the two unknown males who had fled, and that he was about to leave. He also claimed that he consumed ketamine three to four times a day, 3 to 4 grammes each time. He said he bought it in bulk because it was cheaper and the quantity he bought could last for around three months. He also said that he was a casual construction worker, earning about $750 a day and he was not in receipt of CSSA. The estimated street value of the drug at the time of the arrest was $28,910. The defendant has a clear record. In mitigation, I am advised that he is 19 years of age. He was born in China and came to Hong Kong when he was aged about 6. He left school at 15, having completed Form 1. He worked first as a transport worker and ended up as a construction site worker. He was out of work at the time of his arrest. Ordinarily, when he was working, he contributed about $4,000 a month to his family. He was introduced to ketamine when he was aged 16 by a friend. At first he took it casually but in September of 2014, when his girlfriend left him, he continued to take ketamine at a higher rate. He always bought from a man called “Ah Kwai”. On the day of his arrest, he said that Ah Kwai had telephoned him and asked him to help with the delivery. As the defendant owed Ah Kwai $4,000, he was interested in the payment that Ah Kwai was offering of $2,000. He said that he went to collect the drug from Ah Kwai at 8.30 pm and was given instructions to go to the housing estate and hand the drugs to the purchaser and collect $13,000. He says, at the time of the arrest, two men approached him and asked the defendant to follow them to a more private place for the transaction to be completed. The police saw them and at that stage, the defendant threw away the drugs in the bag. In mitigation, it was urged on me that he is a young man, this is his first criminal offence and he sought leniency from the court. He reinforced this request with a letter that he had written and which was produced to the court. In that letter, he said that he had had time to reflect on his position. He felt deep remorse for committing an illegal act. He recognised that it had ruined his life and he felt that he had let his parents down, which was particularly difficult because they are advanced in years and in poor health. He says that if given a chance, he will definitely mend his ways and never break the law again and he would fulfil his responsibilities to his parents and make a contribution to society. He pleaded for a chance to turn over a new leaf. His mother, as might be expected, confirmed how upset she was about the defendant’s position and she pleaded with the court for leniency for her son. She says that he realises he has made a mistake and feels deeply remorseful. The tariff sentence for this particular offence involving ketamine is set out in the case of Hii Siew Cheng. This quantity of narcotic, 194 grammes, comes under the category which is listed as category 4 and which attracts a sentence of between 6 and 9 years. The only pertinent mitigation in this case is the defendant’s plea of guilty to the charge which I accept was an early plea. Taking all matters into account, his clear record, his youth, his remorse, I take a starting point of 7 years for sentence and I sentence the defendant to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. |