The defendant, Zhu Juyang, pleaded guilty in the court below to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and admitted the facts pertaining to the charge. Before me, the defendant has confirmed his guilty plea and admission of the Summary of Facts dated 14 December 2021.
The defendant committed the offence on 17 July 2020 at a residential unit in Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon. The charge concerned 4,375 grammes of a solid containing 3,653 grammes of ketamine and 2,494 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2,442 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ‘Ice’.
The Facts
The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant reads:
“(1) In the night of 17 July 2020, a team of police officers carried out an anti-dangerous drugs operation in the area of Ngau Tau Kok and Sau Mau Ping.
(2) At about 9.35 pm on the same day, the police were carrying out surveillance at the rear staircase of the 8th Floor, Wing Ngai Mansion, Nos. 9-15 Luen On Street, Sau Mau Ping, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“the building”). They spotted the defendant coming out from Flat E on the 8th Floor of the building (“Flat E”). They then approached the defendant and intercepted him at the lift lobby of the 8th Floor for investigation.
(3) Upon search, the police found from the waist area of the defendant a bunch of keys. Upon inquiries, the defendant told the police that three of the keys thereof were the keys to Room 1 of Flat E (“Room 1”).
(4) The police thereafter presented and explained the search warrant of Flat E to the defendant and used the said three keys found on the defendant to gain entry into Room 1.
(5) A search was then conducted at Room 1 on the strength of the search warrant and in the presence of the defendant. Upon search, the police found inside Room 1 the following items:
Inside the toilet of Room 1:
(a) a blue paper box containing 10 transparent resealable plastic bags containing 2,494 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2,442 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride; 2 transparent resealable plastic bags containing 494 grammes of a solid containing 428 grammes of ketamine; and
(b) a blue environmental bag containing 5 transparent resealable plastic bags containing 3,881 grammes of a solid containing 3,225 grammes of ketamine.
Inside the living room of Room 1:
(c) 27 empty transparent resealable plastic bags;
(d) 16 pieces of plastic gloves;
(e) a roll of plastic tape;
(f) an electronic scale; and
(g) a sealing machine.
(6) Therefore, a total 2,494 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2,442 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and 4,375 grammes of a solid containing 3,653 grammes of ketamine were found in Room 1.
(7) The defendant was then arrested and cautioned for the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.
(8) At the time of the arrest, the defendant had, inter alia, a piece of tenancy agreement, cash of HK$60 and two mobile phones on his person.
(9) Under arrest and caution, the defendant stated that he was delivering the stuff for others.
(10) In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated under caution, inter alia, that:
(a) He was instructed by someone (“X”) to traffic in the subject dangerous drugs;
(b) He was instructed by X to rent Room 1 and to store the dangerous drugs in Room 1 and to deliver the dangerous drugs to others.
(c) He would use the paraphernalia found in Room 1 to weigh and re-package the dangerous drugs.
(d) One of the mobile phones found from him, (i.e. the iPhone 8 Plus) was used by him to communicate with X regarding the dangerous drugs.
(e) He would receive a reward of HK$500 each time when he successfully delivered dangerous drugs to others.
(11) A house search was conducted at the residence of the defendant in So Uk Estate. Upon search, nothing illegal or suspicious was found therein.
(12) The defendant was the tenant of Room 1 for a period of two years, commencing from 15 June 2020 to 14 June 2022 at a monthly rent of HK$3,900.
(13) A fingerprint belonging to the defendant was found on the metal gate of Room 1.
(14) The total estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized was about $3,679,802 with a breakdown as follows:
(a) ketamine: $2,038,750; and
(b) methamphetamine hydrochloride: HK$1,641,052.
(15) The defendant now admits and accepts that at the material time he unlawfully trafficked in all the dangerous drugs seized.”
Antecedents
The defendant is now 28 years of age. He was educated up to Form 3 level in Hong Kong. He was a chef but was unemployed at the material time. He is a married man and he resided with his mother and two sisters in Cheung Sha Wan before his arrest. The defendant has a clear record.
Mitigation
I have considered the oral and written mitigation made by Mr Woon for the defendant. I have also considered the mitigation letters placed before me.
Mr Woon told me that the defendant was instructed by a friend whom he knew from the internet to rent a room for storage of dangerous drugs. The defendant would await instructions as to who, when and where to deliver the dangerous drugs. For each successful delivery, he was promised a reward of HK$500.
Mr Woon asked me to take into account the guilty plea, the defendant’s cooperation with the police after his arrest, the defendant’s relative young age and that the defendant played the role of a storekeeper and a courier in this case.
Mr Woon submitted that the defendant has strong family support, as evidenced by the mitigation letter of the defendant’s mother.
Mr Woon submitted that applying the absurdity test, the conversion test and ratio test, the starting points should be about 26 years and 9 months (the absurdity test), 24 years and 11 months (the conversion test) and 23 years and 3 months (the ratio test).
Mr Woon asked me to adopt a starting point most favourable to the defendant and impose a most lenient sentence in view of the mitigating factors.
Consideration
I have considered the nature and quantities of the dangerous drugs involved, the facts of the case, the background of the defendant, the sentencing authorities placed before me and all the matters said by counsel in mitigation.
This case concerns trafficking in ketamine and ‘Ice’. The guidelines set down by the Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng & another [2008] 3 HKC 323 are applicable to trafficking in ketamine while the guidelines set down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691 and HKSAR v Abdallah Abbas [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 are applicable to trafficking in ‘Ice’.
The quantity of ketamine in the present case was 3,653 grammes. Applying the guidelines in Hii Siew Cheng, for trafficking over 1,000 grammes of ketamine, a sentence of over 14 years’ imprisonment is called for.
The quantity of ‘Ice’ in the present case was 2,442 grammes. Applying the guidelines in Tam Yi Chun, for amounts of 600 grammes and over, the same tariffs as prescribed in Abdallah for those quantities of heroin should be applied. According to the guidelines in Abdallah, the customary sentence after trial for trafficking in 1,200 to 4,000 grammes of heroin should be 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment.
On the facts before me, I am satisfied that the defendant was the storekeeper and courier of the dangerous drugs stored in Room 1. The tariffs in Hii Siew Cheng, Tam Yi Chun and Abdallah are applicable to the case of the defendant.
This case concerns trafficking of cocktail drugs, namely, ketamine and ‘Ice’. In my judgment, a combined approach in sentencing is appropriate.
Of the two kinds of dangerous drugs involved, ‘Ice’ is more serious than ketamine in terms of potency. The applicable band of sentence for trafficking 1,200 and 4,000 grammes of ‘Ice’ is 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment. The 2,442 grammes of ‘Ice’ calls for a starting point of 24 years and 3 months’ imprisonment after trial.
In my judgment, the amount of ketamine found is significant. In this case, if the defendant were to be sentenced for trafficking in ketamine alone, the 3,653 grammes of ketamine would call for a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment after trial.
As said, I would adopt the combined the approach and use the 2,442 grammes of ‘Ice’ as the basis of the starting point. As said, 2,442 grammes of ‘Ice’ calls for a starting point of 24 years and 3 months’ imprisonment after trial.
I have considered the application of the three tests as set out in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013. I am grateful to Mr Woon for his assistance in the calculations he made.
In my judgment, the application of the ratio test would lead to an illogical result. Under the ratio test, based on the proportion of ‘Ice’ and ketamine, the sentence should be around 23 years and 3 months, but as said the 2,442 grammes of ‘Ice’ alone would call for a starting point of 24 years and 3 months. It defies common sense that with the addition of 3,653 grammes of ketamine, the starting point should be 1 year shorter.
In my judgment, the presence of 3,653 grammes of ketamine calls for an upward adjustment. In my judgment, an upward adjustment of 1 year is appropriate. With the adjustment, the notional starting point after trial is therefore 25 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
The defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for his timely plea. That would bring his sentence down to 16 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
The one-third reduction has already taken into account the clear record of the defendant. I can see no other mitigating factors which can further reduce the sentence.
Sentence
For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 16 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.