COURT: The defendant, Cheung Chi-hin, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134, before a magistrate and is committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.
So I will relate the Admitted Facts first. The Admitted Facts disclose that police officers laid ambush in the vicinity of a particular room in a building in Mui Wo, Lantau Island, on 27 June 2021 and the defendant was seen coming out of the room and he was intercepted by the police. Using one of the keys found on the defendant, the officers obtained entry into the room. The room was searched and the following were found. Inside the middle drawer of a wardrobe in the bedroom:
(a) 11 large resealable bags containing a total of 2.73 kilogrammes of a powder containing 2.37 kilogrammes of ketamine;
Then inside the bottom drawer of the same wardrobe:
(b) a large resealable bag containing 244 grammes of a powder containing 211 grammes of ketamine;
(c) eight small resealable bags containing a total of 38.5 grammes of a powder containing 33.4 grammes of ketamine;
Then on a table in the living room:
(d) a plastic bag sealing machine;
(e) two electronic scales;
(f) three stacks of empty resealable bags;
(g) four used disposable gloves;
(h) a metal plate;
(i) a metal spoon;
(j) a pair of scissors;
(k) two marker pens;
Then on a table in the kitchen:
(l) a large quantity of resealable bags;
(m) a box of new disposable gloves;
(n) 30 empty hand carry plastic bags; and
(o) four marker pens.
The total amount of dangerous drugs was 3,012.5 grammes of a powder containing 2,614.4 grammes of ketamine, with an estimated street value of HK$1,711,100.
The defendant was arrested and under caution, he said he trafficked those dangerous drugs to earn quick money and defendant admitted he was in possession of the dangerous drug in question for unlawful trafficking.
The Antecedent and Mitigation
Now, according to the antecedents statement, the defendant was born in Hong Kong on 20 July 2005 so he was therefore aged 15, one month short of 16 at the time of the offence. He is now 18. The defendant was educated up to Form 4 level and he claimed to be a student prior to his arrest with no working experience.
The defendant was arrested for common assault on 10 March 2020, that is prior to this offence, for which he was sentenced to a fine of $1,000 on 30 May 2022, that is subsequent to the offence. The defendant is single and prior to his incarceration, he was living with his father in a flat in Kwai Shing West Estate.
In mitigation, defence counsel Mr Chau Hing-pang submitted that the defendant foolishly committed the present offence when his family faced dire financial problems. His security guard father, having injured his foot and had to stop work while his saleslady mother lost her job due to the pandemic. He was enticed by a friend known as Ah Ching to help packaging and delivery of drug to earn quick money. He was promised a payment of $400 to $500 each time upon completion of the job.
Mr Chau submitted that the defendant was very remorseful for his misdeed and promised to better himself by studying while in gaol. The defendant promised to be a law-abiding citizen after he is released from gaol.
After referring to mitigation letters written by the defendant, the defendant’s mother and a Chaplain Lam to which I will refer later, Mr Chau referred me to the cases of Hii Siew Cheng, Chan Ka Yiu, Sin Chung Kin, and Chow Yau Ching and submitted that a proper starting point for the present case involving 2.6 kilogrammes of ketamine should not be less than 18 years. Acknowledging that the age of the defendant at the time of the offence, that is almost 16 years old, cannot be considered extremely youthful, Mr Chau asked this Court to still take into consideration the defendant’s young age and be as lenient as possible.
The defendant, who quit school before finishing secondary school, wrote to me in English. Mr Chau informed me that the defendant asked other inmates to help him write the letter. In the letter, the defendant explained why he had committed this crime. Apart from the financial problem faced by his family, the defendant also cited his lack of education and purpose in life as reasons for his transgressing the law. He asked for a second chance and promised to make the world a better place.
The defendant’s mother wrote to explain that as she and her husband had to work to maintain the family, the defendant was looked after by grandparents. They blamed themselves for not taking good care of the defendant or to correct the defendant’s twisted view of value. The defendant was described as a kind person who was led astray by undesirable friends. Defendant’s mother begged for leniency on the defendant’s behalf.
Finally, Chaplain Lam wrote to say that he came to know the defendant over a year ago. The defendant impressed him as someone who was diligent and get along well with other inmates. The defendant is remorseful for what he had done and was willing to shoulder the responsibility. Chaplain Lam asked this Court to take those factors into consideration when sentencing the defendant.
My consideration for the Sentence
Trafficking in dangerous drugs is a serious offence. A person convicted of this offence upon indictment is liable to be imprisoned for life and a fine of $5 million. In the case of Hii Siew Cheng, the Court of Appeal set down guidelines for the trafficking of ketamine. Trafficking over 1 kilogramme of ketamine, the starting point is upwards from 14 years. In the case of Chan Ka Yiu, the Court of Appeal refused to reconsider the sentencing guideline for the trafficking of ketamine as laid down in Hii Siew Cheng and followed the cases of Sin Chung Kin and Chow Yau Ching when the quantity trafficked in is greater than 1 kilogramme.
For the trafficking in 2 kilogrammes, the starting point should be no less than 18 years. For trafficking in 3 kilogrammes, the starting point should not be less than 20 years.
I will adopt the six-step approach in the case of Herry Jane Yusuph.
(1) the quantity of ketamine involved here is 2.6 kilogrammes. The starting point should therefore not be less than 18 years and could even be closer to 19 years.
(2) the defendant acted as a packer and a courier, so his role while still important is nowhere near that of a mastermind or organiser.
(3) had the defendant been an adult, I would have adopted a starting point of 19 years. However, while not of extreme youth, the defendant was still fairly young and was easily influenced by undesirable elements to commit such a serious crime. So in the circumstances, I will reduce the starting point to one of 16½ years.
(4) there are no aggravating factors to enhance this starting point. I will not take into account the defendant’s common assault conviction for the purpose of sentence.
(5) the defendant pleaded guilty at earliest available opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount.
(6) with the discount, the sentence is one of 11 years. I think you better make sure that that is correct. 16½ with one-third discount should be 11, right? Just make sure.
But anyway, this sentence, I am of the view that it is a fair and just sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant, the offender.