CRIMINAL CASE NO. 318 OF 2010
COURT: Ho Wai-ming, on 11 June of this year, you brought a quantity of ketamine, concealed in your clothing, through the border at Lo Wu into Hong Kong.
That quantity was 832.76 grammes.
You knew, when you brought it into Hong Kong, that it was dangerous drugs, and when you were intercepted by the Customs at the border, you said that you were bringing it into Hong Kong for somebody you named as “Ah Shing” for a fee of $2,000. You said you had been told to take the dangerous drugs to a minibus station in Sheung Shui and hand it over to “Ah Shing”.
The value of those drugs in Hong Kong, sold, that is, is estimated at somewhere around $116,000.
I know you have been told already that sentencing is based primarily on the narcotic quantity for those who traffick in dangerous drugs, and that figure of 832.76 grammes is the figure that the court must take primarily into account.
You pleaded guilty to trafficking in those dangerous drugs before the Magistrate, and were committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
This court, as the sentencing court, must apply guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal for trafficking in this particular type of dangerous drug, and the guideline case for trafficking in ketamine has brackets of quantity of drugs for which various sentences are prescribed.
You fall into a bracket of 600 to 1,000 grammes, for which a starting point for sentence of 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment is laid down in those guidelines. It is a starting point before any aggravating matter is taken into account and before the mitigation is taken into account.
In your case, the quantity of drugs that you were trafficking in puts you somewhere in the middle of that bracket.
There is an aggravating circumstance to your case, which is that you were trafficking the drugs into Hong Kong. After they had been brought into Hong Kong, they would undoubtedly have been distributed to users, and the court is bound to take account of that aggravating feature.
Before I deal with the issue of mitigation, I can tell you that, in my judgment, the appropriate starting point for sentence in your case is one of 13½ years’ imprisonment.
As to the issue of mitigation, I do not disregard what I have been told on your behalf about your family and personal circumstances and your remorse; but the most important factor in mitigation is your plea of guilty. That was entered at the very first opportunity in the Magistrates’ Court. Pleas of guilty conventionally lead to a discount of one-third from the starting point.
It seems to me that some recognition needs to be given to the fact that you pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. There are some who do not; there are some who wait until their case is committed for trial, and indeed listed for trial, before entering pleas of guilty; and they too receive a discount of one-third on their sentences.
I shall apply that one-third discount to the 13½ years that I have indicated already as a starting point, but I can tell you that in fixing that starting point, I have had regard to the fact that there was a very early plea in this case, because with the aggravation of the importation of these drugs into Hong Kong which I have already referred to, a starting point of 14 years' imprisonment could have been justified.
However, taking 13½ years as the starting point, and reducing it by one-third, the sentence that I intend to impose upon you in respect of this offence of trafficking in
dangerous drugs is one of 9 years' imprisonment.