CRIMINAL CASE NO. 198 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 3 June 2011 to one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 473.04 grammes of powder containing 352.20 grammes of ketamine. Today before me the defendant confirmed that plea of guilty.
He also confirmed the facts that he admitted at committal. Those facts show that the defendant was observed by police as he came downstairs from his flat address in the Upper Wong Tai Sin Estate. He was stopped and questioned by the police, and told them that he was going to his home. The police asked to search him, and did so.
In the inner pocket of his jacket was found a black plastic bag containing 35 resealable transparent plastic bags, each containing a white substance suspected to be dangerous drugs.
The defendant was arrested and cautioned for trafficking in a dangerous drug, and in reply, the defendant said, “Ah Sir, the ‘K-chai’ is mine and it has nothing to do with my girlfriend and my family members.”
Police executed a search warrant in respect of the premises where the defendant lived with his family. A search revealed, inside a locked drawer in the defendant’s bedroom, one electronic scale and one quantity of resealable transparent plastic bags. When questioned, the defendant said, “Ah Sir, the electronic scale and plastic bags are mine for weighing ‘K-chai’. It has nothing to do with my girlfriend.”
Later, in a videotaped interview, the defendant told the police that there was only one key to the locked drawer in his bedroom. He said that he had met a man through a friend of his and had agreed to deliver something for him because he was in need of money. He was given the electronic scale and the plastic bags and told to keep them, but he was not told what they were to be used for. On the evening of his arrest, the man had called him and asked him to pick up a black plastic bag from the pavement nearby and await his telephone call.
He did so, and was given $500 cash, but did not check what was actually in the bag. He was on his way home when he was stopped and searched by the police. The defendant could not provide any details of the man for whom he was carrying the drugs, the name of the discotheque where they met, or the name of his friend; nor could he remember when and where he received the scales and plastic bags. He confirmed that his girlfriend did not know about the scales, the plastic bags or the black bag and its contents, and his girlfriend, when questioned by the police, said that she had no knowledge of the items.
The defendant now admits that he was at all material times unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs.
Analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed the nature and quantity of the drugs as set out in the particulars of the charge. The estimated retail value of the drugs was HK$40,150.
The defendant has a clear criminal record. He is aged 20. His antecedents statement showed that he was born in China and that he was educated up to Form 3 level in Hong Kong. In terms of his employment history, after completing his Form 3 education, the defendant worked as a salesman and decoration worker between July 2005 and January 2010, and later worked as a vehicle attendant until January of 2011.
I have had placed before me a number of letters from the defendant’s parents, his elder brother,his younger sister, his aunt, uncle and cousins, and a number of friends of the family, most of whom have had the opportunity of watching the defendant grow up. The first letter, from the defendant himself, confirms his remorse, his sorrow for the trouble that he has brought to his parents, and his intention to plan his future actively and obtain qualifications that will enable him to become a social welfare worker in the future, so that he can share his experience with young people and contribute to society.
His parents clearly blame themselves in part for this offence. The father says he did not fulfil his responsibility as a father because he was working as an immigrant from China, that he worked for a long time on the mainland, and did not give sufficient fatherly love to his son. The mother writes in a similar vein, and so does the elder brother.
I should state at this stage that this defendant is aged 20 years, and he cannot really blame other people for this offence. He knew quite well what he was doing in terms of this offence. It was a stupid offence, but it is not one for which he can blame his parents or his elder brother, and I do not think that they should continue to blame themselves either. Many people have to work overseas or on the mainland to support their families, and not all the children left behind turn to dealing in dangerous drugs.
However, I am prepared to accept that the family is very supportive. I note that the employer was pleased with the defendant’s work and considered him hard-working, and I note that his school certificate indicates that he completed Form 3, and although he may not have been academically a great achiever, that he was well behaved while he was at school.
This is a tragic case, as all these cases involving young people are, but I am satisfied that the defendant has a good chance of turning over a new leaf, as the saying has it, and that he has supportive parents and family to help him both while he is in prison and also when he is released.
The sentencing guidelines for ketamine are set out in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng, [2009] 1HKLRD 1, and for this quantity of narcotic, which is the lesser quantity recorded in the particulars of the charge, a sentence in the range of 9 to 12 years is appropriate.
The only real mitigating factor in this case is the plea of guilty entered by the defendant, which I accept was notified to the court at an early stage, and he pleaded guilty at committal.
I take a starting point of 9 years in this case, discount that by one-third, and impose a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.