案情指，警員喺一個大廈後樓梯截停被告，喺佢身上搜獲五袋毒品，其後經化驗，證實為內含55.44克氯胺酮嘅66.8克粉末，被告承認喺該處收藏毒品，打算較後嘅時間出售。後來，警員從佢嘅住所亦都搜出多包嘅毒品，同埋多個可再封口嘅膠袋，以及一個電子磅。被告亦都聲稱毒品係佢早前購入，並且打算將佢賣畀朋友。被告嘅住所撿獲嘅毒品其後證實為10.46克，內含8.82克氯胺酮嘅粉末，以及內含16.46克可卡因嘅22.44克固體，所有嘅可卡因同埋氯胺酮當時嘅市值分別為港幣21,564元及9,271元。
被告現年22歲，有兩次嘅刑事紀錄，其中一次係管有危險藥物，係喺2008年5月8號被判處罰款3,000元。大律師喺求情嘅時候表示，被告喺案發前兩個月失業，係因為經不起他人嘅唆擺，先至干犯本案。
本席喺量刑嘅時候考慮咗本案嘅案情、毒品嘅種類、重量、有關嘅量刑指引、被告認罪，以及大律師嘅求情，亦都閱讀咗有關嘅求情信。本案係牽涉兩種嘅毒品，即係包括64.26克嘅氯胺酮，以及16.1克嘅可卡因，上訴庭喺香港特別行政區訴葉偉賢（CACC 80/2003）一案中指出，法庭喺量刑嘅時候，現時多以組合量刑方法處理（combined approach），即係需先考慮案中主要毒品嘅重量，予以起刑點，然後因應重量可觀嘅另外嘅毒品，將有關適當嘅起刑點往上調整，而何謂主要嘅毒品，係視乎毒性，而並非佢嘅重量，本案嘅主要毒品係可卡因，但係氯胺酮嘅重量係為可卡因接近四倍。
上訴庭喺鄭日明（CACC 455/2006）一案指出，組合量刑原則適用於案中涉及可相若處理毒品嘅情況（drugs of a comparable kind），上訴庭係咁講 “The difficulty being faced in cases of the kind where either an individual or a combined approach is adopted only arises where the sentencing brackets for the types of drugs are markedly different. Where drugs of a comparable kind, such as heroin, cocaine and ice are being trafficked the combined approach, where a global sentence is taken, can usually be used.”
根據劉德明案，販運可卡因10至到50克，起刑點為5至8年，本案涉及16.1克嘅可卡因，起刑點大約係6年。至於64.26克嘅氯胺酮，根據許守城案件嘅量刑指引，即係納入50至到300克，6至到9年嘅量刑界別，應該大概嘅起刑點亦都約為6年，但係觀乎氯胺酮以及可卡因嘅量刑指引，兩者不屬可相若處理嘅毒品。辯方大律師所援引嘅香港特別行政區訴黃健球，案中以綜合方向處理咗「冰」以及氯胺酮嘅量刑。簡而言之，上訴庭認為根據量刑指引中，案中所涉及嘅「冰」毒同埋氯胺酮嘅各自起刑點相若，均為9年，原審法官以個別方向將兩種毒品嘅起刑點加在一起，以18年作為總起刑點嘅做法不當，上訴庭利用轉化對換嘅計算方式，達至一個中位數字，即係12年嘅起刑點。辯方大律師指，沿用上述嘅轉化對換方式嘅計算，本案所有嘅毒品嘅總起點應為約七年半，而本案並冇證供顯示氯胺酮與可卡因混合後可增加毒性，故此，法庭應該以七年半作為兩項控罪所牽涉所有毒品嘅總起刑點。
根據香港特別行政區訴黎國洪（譯音）（CACC 564/2002）一案，上訴庭係咁講 “If a man is in possession of three different and distinct types of drugs（each in a substantial quantity）for the purposes of trafficking, then it is entirely appropriate to look at and to apply the tariff applicable to each drug whether at the time of seizure they remain unblended or whether they have been mixed into tablet form. In the case of tablets, it is certainly not appropriate to ignore one substantial constituent drug simply because it is apparently less significant（or perhaps arguably less dangerous）than another and therefore to be regarded as no more than as a form of dilutant.”
“By that process the sentencer will arrive at what might be described as an initial view of the appropriate starting point and from there he will proceed to attempt to achieve a just over-all sentence taking into account, amongst other things, the fact of the combination of the drugs（if that has any relevance）; the general mitigation and the principle of totality.”
上訴法庭喺鄭日明案中，考慮咗另外案件就係張保才（Tommy）（CACC 233/2005），並援引如下：“The presence of more than one type of drug in a drug trafficking offence must itself be an aggravating factor. Whilst the reason for this is not stated in the judgment, no doubt the rationale was that the trafficker in more than one type of drug is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.”
本席考慮到本案所涉及嘅毒品，各自嘅判刑起點，以及張保才一案所指販運多於一種毒品存在，令案情情節嚴重嘅因素，再考慮咗整體刑期，認為就住兩項控罪所牽涉所有嘅毒品，9年嘅量刑起點係合適，呢個亦都係兩種毒品各自嘅起刑點加在一起，與單一種毒品嘅起刑點嘅中位數，本席予以三分之一嘅認罪扣減，判刑6年，兩項控罪分配如下：
控罪一，4年；控罪二，6年。同期執行。