HKSAR v. Zheng Xinwei

DCCC 753/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 753 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant faced one charge of Conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs (charge 1) and an alternative charge of Trafficking in dangerous drugs (charge 2). The defendant pleaded guilty to the trafficking charge.

2.Particulars of charge 2 are that the defendant on 14 July 2015 trafficked in 57g of ketamine at the rear lane of no.121 Tung Choi Street, Mongkok.

Summary of facts

3.The defendant was stopped and searched at the junction of Sai Yeung Choi Street South and Fife Street at around 6pm on 14 July 2015.

4.Police officers found 5 large bags containing white powder and 10 small bags containing white powder inside the cross-body bag that the defendant was carrying. The defendant was immediately arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs. Under caution, the defendant said that he was delivering the “K” for a reward of $800.

5.The defendant was brought to Mongkok Police Station and a further search was conducted on the defendant. A Samsung mobile phone and cash of $3,322 were found on him.

6.Government chemist analysed the powder found on the defendant and confirmed that the 91.8g of solid contained 57g of ketamine. The estimated street value as of July 2015 of the drugs found on the defendant was $13,403.

Previous Convictions

7.The defendant is of previously clear record.

Mitigation

8.The defendant is 19 years old. The defendant was unemployed in July 2015, was working as a kitchen apprentice until June 2015.

9.The defendant came to Hong Kong from Hainan 2 years ago. Before his arrest, he lived in Sham Shui Po, Yu Chau Street. When he was working, he earned $15,000 per month.

10.Counsel for the defendant pointed out that the defendant had been cooperative with the arresting officer, telling him no need to search further, that he was carrying ‘K’ and that he was delivering the drug for a reward of $800.

11.A letter written by the defendant was handed up. The defendant explained how he had adopted a lifestyle that landed him in debt. He owed around $80,000 to finance companies. The defendant committed the offence in order to make some quick and easy money to repay his debts. He feels remorseful and ashamed towards his family.

Sentencing tariff

12.The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine and ecstasy is laid down in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, CAAR 7/2006. The applicable tariff band[1] for trafficking in 57g of ketamine is that of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.

Role of the defendant

13.According to the defendant’s admission made in his two video recorded interviews, he took up a ‘job’ offer from some random person who added him on the social communication phone application ‘WeChat’ for $800 per day.

14.The defendant went to a public bathroom to meet up with the person, who gave the defendant the drugs. The defendant knew it was ketamine.

15.The defendant then kept the drugs on his person. The man texted the phone number and location of the buyers, as well as the quantity and price of the drugs to be sold to the defendant.

16.Upon receiving those information, the defendant would proceed to deliver the drugs and collect payments. The defendant sold 3 large bags of ketamine in the Mongkok area on the day of his arrest, at $1,100 per bag.

17.The role of the defendant in the trafficking is not a minor one. He was the courier as well as the cashier. He was the link between the supplier and the user. The defendant also did it for reward, albeit a modest one.

The defendant’s Clear record

18.The fact that the defendant is of clear record accounts for little in mitigation given the serious nature of the offence.

The defendant’s age

19.The defendant is 19 years old and cannot be said to be of ‘extreme youth’. Given the serious nature of the offence,  I find that his age accounts for little in terms of mitigation.

Starting point

20.Applying the guidelines, taking into consideration that the defendant was not the mastermind of the operation although he had taken up an important role, also bearing in mind that this is the defendant’s first conviction for a criminal offence, I will adopt a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, being the lower end of the tariff band for the amount of ketamine involved.

21.Although the defendant was cooperative with the Police after his arrest, I find that the cooperation was very basic and does not warrant a discount in sentence. I see no further aggravating or mitigating factors apart from the defendant’s guilty plea, for which the defendant is given the usual one-third discount.

22.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment on charge 2.