CRIMINAL CASE NO. 214 OF 2010
COURT: The defendant faced two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.
He pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance in the High Court for sentence.
The facts disclosed that on the day in question, a team of police officers were conducting an anti-dangerous drugs operation on the 2nd floor of Wah Yuen Building, which is situated at No. 164 Fa Yuen Street, Mongkok. The defendant was intercepted at the corridor soon after he came out of the flat. Upon search, he was found to have a packet of suspected ketamine inside his right trousers pocket.
The police arrested the defendant for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under caution, the defendant asked for a chance, saying it was only a job and that he was paid to deliver the “K-chai” to others.
The police then executed a search warrant and entered the said flat, using keys seized from the defendant. Inside one of the six rooms, the police searched and found four bags of suspected ketamine, two electronic scales, and some resealable plastic bags.
The police again arrested the defendant for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Under caution, the defendant said he was paid to “‘Fa’ the ‘K-chai’”, meaning to weigh and pack the drug into smaller packets. He said he only charged $100 per half an ounce, and he was not the chief. He also said he had decided to quit the job after that day. He did not want to go to jail, and asked for a chance.
Later analysis disclosed that the packet found on the defendant’s person contained 14.38 grammes of a solid containing 11.83 grammes of ketamine. The drugs found inside the said room consisted of 909.33 grammes of a solid containing 668.75 grammes of ketamine. The street value of the ketamine is estimated at $110,845.
During a video-recorded interview the defendant gave details of how he worked for two persons, going up to the room in question to weigh the dangerous drugs and pack them in small packets before delivering them to customers. He got $100 for every half-ounce.
The defendant was 20 years of age at the time of the offence. He is now 21. He has a clear record prior to these offences. As to the defendant’s personal background, he has parents in their 50s, father is a casual worker, mother a housewife, and he was the third of four sons. He completed Form 5 studies and has been in and out of several jobs, mainly as a salesperson.
Mr Hung, mitigating on behalf of the defendant, informed me the defendant was approached by two persons at a games centre to deliver dangerous drugs for them. As the defendant was unemployed at the time, he succumbed to the monetary temptation and committed the offences. Basically, what the defendant has said when interviewed under caution was what had happened.
Mr Hung admitted that this case falls under the guidelines set in the case of Hii Siew Cheng, and the quantity involved here is towards the lower end of 12 to 14 years. Mr Hung also frankly admitted that the only mitigation on the defendant’s part is his plea. There are no other special or humanitarian grounds to reduce the sentence, even though the defendant’s former teachers sang his praises.
Trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence, and offenders are severely punished when caught.
The total quantity of ketamine involved in this case amounts to 680.58 grammes.
In the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, the Court of Appeal set down guidelines for the trafficking of ketamine. For trafficking 600 to 1,000 grammes of ketamine, the appropriate starting point is within the range of 12 to 14 years.
On the facts admitted, clearly the defendant was not the head of the syndicate. He was being used by the syndicate to pack and deliver the dangerous drugs as and when required. That said, the defendant still played an important role in the trafficking of dangerous drugs.
It is sad to see a young man of previous clear record get himself into this kind of serious trouble. Hopefully, the defendant learnt his lesson, and reforms himself while serving out his sentence.
Having considered all the circumstances of these offences, in particular the quantity of the ketamine involved and the role played by the defendant; and the defendant’s background, including the fact that he was a young man and of clear record, I am of the view that a starting point of 12 years is appropriate.
The defendant had made a timely plea before the magistrate, and is entitled to the full one-third discount. There are no other grounds to further reduce the sentence.
So the sentences are as follows:
For the 1st charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2½ years' imprisonment;
For the 2nd charge, 8 years' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the 2½ years imposed on the 1st charge, making a total of 8 years.