COURT: This is the sentence.
Background and the Facts
The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug in the Eastern Magistrates Court on 23 December 2016. This morning, he confirmed his pleas and accepted the Summary of Facts.
Briefly, on 13 May 2016, the defendant was stopped by the police when he came out of the building where he lived. Upon a body search, the police found the ketamine particularised in the 1st count. That is 26.3 grammes of a powder containing 12.1 grammes of ketamine. The drug was contained in two plastic bags kept inside a cigarette box which was seized from the defendant’s trousers pocket. The defendant was arrested and under caution, he admitted that the drug was for delivery to others.
The defendant was then taken for a house search. As a result, another lot of ketamine was found on his bed together with one electronic scale, a plastic spoon and a pile of empty resealable plastic bags. The drug found is the subject matter of the 2nd count, that is 678 grammes of a powder containing 301.2 grammes of ketamine. Under further caution, the defendant admitted that the drug was for later delivery.
When subsequently interviewed by the police by way of video-recording, the defendant repeated his admissions. In total, the ketamine seized by the police on that day was 704.3 grammes of a powder containing 313.3 grammes of ketamine.
The estimated street value was about HK$92,000.
Mitigation
The defendant is 21 years old and has a clear record. He was born in Hong Kong and was educated up to secondary level. After quitting school, he had worked in a few jobs and was a clerk before his arrest, but at the time of his arrest, he was unemployed. The defendant is single and was living with his mother and elder brother at the time of his arrest.
In mitigation, Mr Wong, for the defendant, submitted that the defendant is truly remorseful. He also told the court that the defendant has very good family support in that his mother had quit her job because of the defendant’s involvement in the current offences. Despite his current remand, his family members and relatives continue to visit him unceasingly. Mr Wong urged this court to pass as lenient a sentence as possible on the defendant.
Letters written by the defendant himself, his family members, relatives, former teachers and headmaster were also submitted to the court. In short, all spoke of the good nature of the defendant and that he was merely led astray by undesirable peers. All of them also believe that the defendant is determined to turn over a new leaf. As for the defendant himself, he frankly admitted his wrong and stated that in the past, he had been led astray and had therefore committed the offences in the hope of earning quick money. However, the defendant said in his letter that he is now determined to mend his ways.
The Sentence
In SJ v Hii Siew Cheng & Another [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking 300 to 600 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of 9 to 12 years is called for. In the present case, although there are a total of two counts, the facts were closely linked and both offences were discovered on the same day. It is therefore appropriate to add the different amounts together in determining an overall starting point. See, for example, HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830 and HKSAR v Wong To, CACC 508/2000 (7 August 2001, unreported).
Having considered the facts of this case and that a total of 313.3 grammes of ketamine was involved, I am of the view that a term of 9 years is appropriate. I would therefore adopt this as the starting point for each of Counts 1 and 2. The defendant pleaded guilty; he would receive a one-third reduction in sentence. Nine years reduced by one-third is 6 years’ imprisonment.
Where serious offences like trafficking in a dangerous drug are concerned, the defendant’s relative young age and clear record could not be of any significance in his mitigation. However, in the present case, having heard the mitigation and having considered the defendant’s background, I am prepared to give him a further reduction of 3 months in addition to the one-third reduction for his plea.
The defendant is therefore to serve a term of 5 years and 9 months for each of Counts 1 and 2.
Applying the totality principle, I order that both terms are to run wholly concurrently, resulting in a total term of 5 years and 9 months.