COURT: The defendant was found guilty after trial by jury of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug.
In the early hour on 7 April 2023, the defendant was spotted by police officers, after sniffing ketamine, sitting inside his private car. At the request of the police officers, the defendant stepped outside his car. When police officers asked for a search of his car, the defendant refused and returned to his car. The defendant alighted from his car but then closed the door windows and locked up the car. The defendant then became emotional. He was finally subdued by police officers.
Subsequently, police officers had to break open the car window and proceeded to search the car. The defendant’s hostile and uncooperative actions formed the subject matter of the 2nd count, to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.
A further search of the defendant’s car uncovered 13.42 grammes of ‘Ice’, 8.57 grammes of ketamine and 0.17 grammes of fluorodeschloroketamine, and various paraphernalia such as plastic bags, electronic scale, ‘Ice’ inhaling apparatus, cash of over $19,000.
The jury was of the view or decision that the defendant was in possession of all those drugs and apparatus for the purpose of trafficking.
For Count 1, starting point for trafficking in dangerous drugs would be set at 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. In this case, given the fact that the defendant was himself a ketamine and ‘Ice’ abuser (from the police officers’ observation and the urine examination result conducted by the Correctional Services Department) and the relative small amount of dangerous drugs involved, a 25 per cent discount would be given.
As such, for the 1st count, the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 64 months’ imprisonment. As to the 2nd count of obstruction, a 3 months’ imprisonment would be adopted as the starting point and given the defendant’s earliest plea, the sentence is reduced to one of 2 months’ imprisonment.
After the apprehension of the defendant, he was brought to court, however, the defendant was able to swap his identity by using another person’s wristband and identity documents whilst under police custody with another person and escaped from lawful custody. He was re-arrested I believe a few days later.
The defendant was charged for various offences for his escape and sentenced to a term of 30 months’ imprisonment in the District Court. Mr Khosa submitted that had the two cases, which were highly related, been tried together, all the sentences imposed on both cases should be considered or would thus be considered together. Mr Khosa also submitted that, as such, a wholly consecutive sentence would be unfair and undesirable.
Although the two cases were interrelated, they were quite apart and arose out of complete different situations. The escape from lawful custody was an independent act committed by the defendant, in my view totally unnecessary and futile. The only factor which I am required to consider is the totality principle.
After a careful consideration, I am of the view that a short reduction of 3 months is warranted in the present case. As such for the two counts the defendant stands convicted, it is ordered that the defendant will go to prison for 63 months. It is so ordered.
