HKSAR v. Ip Wai Kwan

DCCC39/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 39 OF 2010

--------------------

--------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

2.The admitted facts can be summarised as follows.

3.At 7.33 pm on 30 November 2009 the defendant came out of Yau Woo Building, No. 132 to 136A, Fa Yuen Street in Mongkok. As he looked panicky and acted furtively, police officers intercepted him for inquiry.

4.Upon body search on the defendant, three transparent resealable plastic bags of ketamine were found from the left front pocket of the defendant’s jeans. The defendant was therefore arrested.

5.Under caution, the defendant replied that, “Ah Sir, the K-powder is for my own consumption.”

6.In a subsequent interview, the defendant explained that by “K-powder”, he was referring to the dangerous drug ketamine.

7.The Government Chemist confirmed that the three plastic bags found on the defendant contained a total quantity of 38.61 grammes of a powder containing 30.72 grammes of ketamine. The retail value of the ketamine in this case is $4,478.

8.The defendant is 25 years of age. He has one previous similar conviction in 2005. He is a part-time vehicle mechanic, earning $4,000 a month, and his family background is unremarkable.

9.In mitigation, the defendant says one-third of the drugs in question were for his own consumption. This claim is not challenged by the prosecution. I therefore accept the defendant’s claim and will sentence him on this basis.

10.I need not emphasise the seriousness of the offence that the defendant has committed. Traffickers of dangerous drugs cannot expect any mercy from the court.

11.The Court of Appeal has set down guidelines for trafficking of ketamine in Hii Siew Cheng.

12.I will adopt the guideline in that case.

13.I will sentence the defendant on the basis that he had 20 grammes of ketamine for trafficking purpose. This quantity would fall within the range of 10 to 50 grammes. I will therefore use 4½ years’ imprisonment as the starting point.

14.I do not enhance the sentence because of his previous conviction. On the other hand, there is no mitigating factor in this case except the defendant’s plea of guilty, for which he will get one-third discount.

15.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.