COURT: Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs before a magistrate and admitted the Summary of Facts. As a result of your plea of guilty, you were committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence. You had admitted that on 22 June 2021, at Room 1, No. 152, Lam Hau Yuen, Lam Hau Tsuen Road, Yuen Long, you unlawfully trafficked in 93.43 grammes of a solid containing 87.33 grammes of cocaine, 106.25 grammes of a solid containing 56.50 grammes of ketamine, and 0.68 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.
On 22 June 2021, police officers had mounted an anti-narcotic operation at No. 152, Lam Hau Yuen. At about 2015 hours that day, they saw you passing by Lam Hau Yuen without entering. Shortly thereafter, you reappeared near Lam Hau Yuen acting suspiciously. The officers then intercepted you for inquiry. During the inquiry, you told them you lived at Room 1, No. 152 Lam Hau Yuen.
A body search was conducted on you, a bunch of keys, $19,269 cash, and three mobile phones were found inside your cross-body bag. The police officers then used the keys to open the iron gate of Lam Hau Yuen and the main door of Room 1. At that time, no one was inside Room 1.
Armed with a search warrant, they conducted a search of Room 1. The room was about 100 square feet in size, consisting of a bed, mahjong table, a metal desk and a bathroom.
Found inside the room were the drugs in the quantity as stated in the charge. The drugs were contained in 46 bags and some of the drugs was wrapped in tissue paper. Found in the room was also 613 empty transparent resealable plastic bags, two electronic scales, and a sealer. You were arrested and cautioned and under caution you claimed the cocaine and ketamine seized from you were for your own consumption.
The estimated street value of the cocaine in June 2021 was $109,874 in powder form or $141,453 in crack form, and for the ketamine, it was about $60,350. That is in June 2021.
Defendant, your counsel, Mr David Iu has mitigated fully on your behalf and at the outset I should state that you are not relying on the fact that any of the drugs was for your own consumption.
You are now 19 years of age, almost 20. But at the time of the offence, you were aged 17. You have a clear record, having never committed an offence in Hong Kong. You have been educated to secondary level Form 3 in Hong Kong and prior to this offence, you were working as a warehouse worker earning approximately $15,000 a month. At the material time of the offence, you were unemployed.
You are single and you lived with your parents in Un Chau Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon. Your father, who is aged 40, is an air-conditioner technician and your step mother, aged 40, is a security guard. They are both present here in court. Whilst you were employed, being a filial son, you had contributed about $3,000 per month to your parent’s various living expenses.
Mr Iu has informed the court that you committed the present offence because of financial pressure. At the material time, due to the pandemic, you were unemployed and your father did not have a stable job. Under the influence of some bad peers, you chose to earn some quick money, that is you would be rewarded $5,000 for your own living.
The premises to which the drugs were found in was not rented by you but by an acquaintance. Mr Iu submitted that you were only a courier in this case. Up until the date of offence, you had never received any reward. Mr Iu has said you very much regret committing this offence and now know that you are foolish.
I have received a letter by you setting out your remorse and how you were led astray by your undesirable peers. You also informed me that you are thankful to your parents in not giving up on you even when you went astray. You are presently trying to improve yourself and taking a hairstyling course whilst in remand and hope to continue to further that when eventually you are released.
In respect of sentence, Mr Iu says that at the time of the offence, you were young, 17 years of age and of clear record. It is trite law that youth is no mitigation to committing these very serious offences. In a very recent case laid down by the Court of Appeal, the courts held that a boy of 17 years of age who was sentenced to training centre was not an appropriate sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment is the appropriate sentence.
I accept, defendant, you had pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity. As Mr Iu again reiterates, you do not allege any of the drugs found to be for self-consumption.
There were three types or kinds of dangerous drugs involved in this case. For the purposes of sentence, however, I shall not take into account the very small amount of herbal cannabis. In sentencing you for this offence, I shall take into account only the cocaine and the ketamine and take the combined approach and apply the conversion test by converting the ketamine to the more potent drug, cocaine.
In sentencing you, defendant, I have taken into account the guideline cases of Lau Tak Ming for the drug cocaine and Hii Siew Cheng for the drug ketamine. Those authorities are well known, [1990] 2 HKLR 370 for Lau Tak Ming, and [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 for Hii Siew Cheng.
For the dangerous drugs of cocaine, you were trafficking in 87.33 grammes. This falls within the bracket of 50 to 200 grammes set out in Lau Tak Ming to which a sentence of 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment is appropriate after trial. In respect of ketamine in Hii Siew Cheng, the amount of ketamine you were trafficking in was 56.50 grammes. That falls within the bracket of 50 to 300 grammes, which a sentence of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment is the appropriate term after trial. Tking the amount of ketamine of 56.50 grammes, the appropriate term of imprisonment for that amount of drugs would be 6 years’ imprisonment.
In converting the ketamine to cocaine, 6 years’ imprisonment would be equivalent to approximately 24 grammes of cocaine. I therefore add 24 grammes to the 87.33 grammes of cocaine, so as to convert all the drugs into cocaine for the purposes of sentence. The total amount of cocaine would therefore be 111.33 grammes of cocaine.
The 111.33 grammes of cocaine still falls within the same bracket in Lau Tak Ming which is between 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment had you been convicted after trial. For this amount of cocaine, I would have taken a starting point of 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
Defendant, I accept that you were only a courier or storekeeper of these drugs and that the early plea of guilty at the first opportunity would attract a one-third discount and in the circumstances you are sentenced to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.