HKSAR v. Pouk Hung San

DCCC 144/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 144 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The drugs involved are, namely, 12.5 grammes of a solid containing 7.58 grammes of ketamine and, separately, 127 grammes of a powder containing 94.8 grammes of ketamine. In total, there is 102.38 grammes of pure ketamine.

2.The facts of this case are straightforward.  On 4 December 2015, at about 7 pm, two police officers on patrol near Cheung Hang Estate Bus Terminus spotted the defendant standing next to a private vehicle.  In their professional opinion, he looked nervous.  Their intuition was accurate, and after they stopped and searched the defendant, they found, in the defendant’s left front jeans pocket, a resealable plastic bag containing ketamine.  That ketamine weighed 12.5 grammes as a solid with a purity of 7.58 grammes.

3.They arrested the defendant for trafficking drugs.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was delivering the ketamine to Kwai Tsing for $1,000 reward.  The defendant went on to inform the police that there was more ketamine in the car underneath the gearbox.  Under the gearbox the police found 30 bags of ketamine.  They totalled 127 grammes, all of a powder of which 94.8 grammes was ketamine.

4.The defendant then went on to give the police more information during video-recorded interviews.  He explained how he obtained the ketamine from a male called “Ah Chuen”.  He had met “Ah Chuen” and had been offered quick cash.  When he agreed to earning quick cash, the defendant discovered that he was to deliver ketamine.  He was worried about the police, so he hid most of the ketamine under the gearbox.  When he was arrested, the drugs in his pocket were to be picked up by an unknown customer. At the time of his arrest he was waiting for that customer.

5.The vehicle belonged to his friend, and that friend had no knowledge the defendant was delivering drugs in his vehicle.

6.The estimated retail value of all the ketamine involved was $18,972.

7.The defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty.

8.The defendant has previous convictions, a total of four, of which two relate to dangerous drugs, but this is his first offence for trafficking dangerous drugs.

9.The defendant is 27 years old and the youngest of two sons.  His parents are very supportive, and his mother has appeared in court today to show that support.  At the time of his arrest, the defendant was working as a part-time transportation worker earning between $8,000 to $10,000 per month.  He would give half his salary to his parents to support them.  From his admission to the police and from mitigation today, the defendant admits he was tempted by the opportunity to earn easy money.  He is now very remorseful for his greed and temptation.

10.There is a guideline for trafficking ketamine, and I have referred myself to the authority of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  The relevant tariff in this case would be, according to that authority, where between 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine is involved, a starting point of between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

11.In this case, mathematically speaking, a starting point of 6 years and 6 months would be appropriate.

12.Defendant, please stand up.  Mr Kwong has said all he can on behalf of the defendant in mitigation, and I have taken into account what has been said.  I also take into account the defendant’s plea today, his admission under caution, his co‑operative behaviour with the police, and the facts of the case.

13.After considering all those relevant factors, I will take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of one-third from that plea.

14.After that discount is applied, the defendant, for this offence, is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.

COURT: Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.