HKSAR v. Siu Chi Pang

DCCC 366/ 2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 366 OF 2009

________________________

________________________

____________________

Reasons for Sentence

____________________

Charges and facts

1.The defendant pleads guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and a charge of possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug.

2.At about 1:00 a.m. on 14 November 2008, PC34735 was on patrol.  He found the defendant somewhat furtive outside Café de Coral Fast Food Restaurant at Ground Floor, Tai On Building, Nos. 57-87 Shau Kei Wan Road.  He intercepted and seized from the defendant:

(1) 2 transparent plastic bags containing a powder (later confirmed to be 55.32 grammes of a mixture containing 47.30 grammes of ketamine;

(2) 2 glass tubes containing traces (later confirmed to be methamphetamine.

3.After arrest and caution, he said:

(1)  He had bought the ketamine for self-consumption in Shenzhen at RMB$3,200;

(2)  Those tubes were for consuming ketamine.

4.The defendant unlawfully trafficking in ketamine by way of importation into Hong Kong from Shenzhen.

Mitigation put forward

5.The defendant is 31 years of age.  He has a minor gambling conviction record.  He is single and lives with his parents.  He was educated up to F.4 level.  Afterwards, he followed his father in the latter’ work in reinforcing dangerous slopes.  In early 2003, there was not enough work for him and he left the job.  In 2005, he ran a trendy goods shop with friends but ended up losing $100,000.  In 2008, he ran a marketing company for beauty companies but also ended up losing money, this time $160,000.  He has owed banks and friends a lot of money for the business operations.  In 2009, he was adjudged bankrupt.  For his misadventure in business, he began to seek solace from ketamine and then “ice”. 

6.He purchased the drug in question 2 days before his arrest.  He intended to consume it himself.  As he did not want to consume it in his flat in Shau Kei Wan, he took the bulk away to another place.  He was stopped by the police near home.   

Sentencing guidelines

7.The Court of Appeal in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 had laid down sentencing guidelines for ketamine trafficking as follows:

(1)     up to 1 gramme – within the sentencer’s discretion;

(2)     over 1 gramme to 10 grammes – 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment;

(3)     10 to 50 grammes – 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment;

(4)     50 to 300 grammes – 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment;

(5)     300 to 600 grammes – 9 to 12 years’ imprisonment;

(6)     600 to 1000 grammes – 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment; and

(7)     over 1000 grammes – 14 years upwards. 

8.There are no sentencing guidelines or norms for possessing apparatus for inhaling ketamine.

Present sentence

9.The defendant imported ketamine from China.  Hong Kong has to guard its doors against drug moving in and out.  At such small hour on the date of his arrest, he carried the bulk on the street.  The present quantity of 47.3 grammes of ketamine would lie in the band of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.  Even without including the fact of his possession of such bulk on the street at such time, a fact which is implausible, for the importation I shall take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.  Given his guilty plea, which is the only mitigating factor, I sentence him to 4 years on the 1^st charge. 

10.I take 6 months as a starting point for the 2^nd charge.  Given his guilty plea, which is the only mitigating factor, I sentence him to 4 months’ imprisonment. 

11.On totality, I make both sentences concurrent.