CRIMINAL CASE NO. 78 OF 2009
COURT: This is yet another example of the type of cases which are becoming increasingly more often before this court. It involves a youngish person going to the mainland, buying drugs, and bringing them back into Hong Kong. In this case, it was just over 200 grammes of ketamine.
In the afternoon of 27 October last year, you were intercepted trying to pass through the “Nothing to Declare” channel at the Lok Ma Chau Border Control Point. You were searched, and in the course of that search, the ketamine was found in packets in your underpants and in your trouser pocket.
On the discovery of each of these amounts, you were cautioned by the Customs officer, and you indicated that it was ketamine which was for your own consumption. You explained to the Customs officer that you had bought the narcotics for RMB8,000 and were bringing them back into Hong Kong.
You accept that the drugs had a retail value in Hong Kong of almost $32,000, some four times what you had paid for them in Shenzhen.
You said that you have been using ketamine for two to three years, and you took it four to five times daily. You accept, however, that not only did you traffic by importing these drugs, but that you, according to your version, intended to share them with others.
That type of distribution remains trafficking. Whether you are selling them or just doing what is erroneously, in my view, referred to as “social trafficking” does not avail you.
In the reasonably recent case of Hii Siew Cheng, the Court of Appeal revisited the appropriate sentence for ketamine. It laid down a new series of guidelines, having had before it considerable evidence on the evil nature of this drug. If you have been, as you claim, using this drug for the last number of years, you know full well yourself just how effective it is; yet you were prepared to introduce this substance back into our community.
I am told you have a close family, and that a number of them are here today. I am sure that they are most distressed at your conduct. I am equally sure that other people, or the parents of others to whom you may have supplied this drug, would not care whether you were charging for it or not.
But the overwhelmingly serious part of this offence is the importation into Hong Kong. That has long been recognised, as Mr Chan, who appears for you, acknowledges, as an aggravating feature justifying an increase in sentence.
In Hii’s case, the Court of Appeal indicated that for trafficking in a quantity of between 50 and 300 grammes of ketamine, the appropriate period of imprisonment is 6 to 9 years. That is the starting point which is suggested to be taken after trial.
In your case, you had fractionally over 200 grammes of ketamine. That suggests an appropriate starting point after trial of 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. However, because of the aspect of importation, I am going to take a 9-year starting point. You are entitled, by virtue of your plea, to a reduction of one-third from that starting point.
That makes a sentence of 6 years.
You have only one spent conviction, which is unrelated to drugs. Effectively, you have a clear record. That is reflected in the full one-third discount you get for your plea.
You married not terribly long before the commission of this offence. Your wife remains in the mainland. I am told on your behalf, and obviously you do not dispute the fact, that you contributed to your mother, who has a longstanding medical condition. One would have thought that perhaps your mother’s condition and your recent marriage were two factors that would have motivated you to stay away from drugs and not import them into Hong Kong. You also appear to have had quite a good job, providing a decent income. That did not deter you either.
Although I note all these factors, none of them, in my view, is further mitigation.
You will consequently serve 6 years in prison.