CRIMINAL CASE NO. 295 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 260.09 grammes of a powder containing 168.5 grammes of ketamine.
The facts show that on 17 March this year, the defendant was sitting in the driver’s seat of a motor car parked outside a building in To Kwa Wan Road, Hung Hom.
Police officers approached the car and revealed their identities, and they saw the defendant kick backward twice with his right foot. Police officers saw a black bag underneath the driver’s seat.
The defendant was asked about the ownership of the black bag, and the defendant said the bag belonged to him. The police officer then requested the defendant and another male passenger to alight from the vehicle and produce their identity cards. The defendant took out his identity card from a wallet from inside the black bag. When the black bag was searched, a total of 46 transparent plastic bags containing the dangerous drugs were found.
The dangerous drugs were examined by the Government Chemist and were found to be in the quantity as stated in the charge. The dangerous drug has a retail value of around $29,390.
The defendant himself is aged 21, and he has two previous conviction, one for possession of dangerous drugs, for which he was sentenced to the DATC at the beginning of the first quarter of this year.
The defendant’s background is nothing out of the ordinary. He is a young man who finished his Secondary 5 level studies in Hong Kong. He then became a salesman and subsequently became unemployed, and he lives with his family in Shatin.
In mitigation, Mr McGuinniety has said everything he could possibly say on behalf of the defendant. The defendant had written a letter to the court to assert that he is remorseful and that because of his addiction to ketamine he had lost his job and he succumbed to the temptation of easy money to traffick in dangerous drugs. He regrets that he cannot take care of his mother, because she has a psychotic disease, and, as Mr McGuinniety pointed out, it does show an insight into his problem.
Mr McGuinniety also produced a letter from the Prince of Wales Hospital Psychiatric Clinic testifying to the fact that the mother of the defendant is suffering from a depressive disorder. The defendant’s mother has written a letter to this court asking this court for leniency and saying that although she has two daughters, but because of her illness, her son was under a lot of pressure because of that. This actually testifies to the fact of a mother’s love for her son. The defendant is very lucky that he still has a loving family around him, which is more than a lot of other people.
Now, as Mr McGuinniety correctly pointed out, ketamine is highly addictive, and those 46 packets found in the defendant’s possession would have caused untold grief to many families of people, young persons, perhaps, who buy those 46 packets.
In all cases, whether it is drug addiction or possession of drugs or trafficking in dangerous drugs, one of the victims is really the family of the defendant, and it is heartening to know that the family is rallying around him, and therefore the defendant does have the support to turn over a new leaf.
The courts have said time and time again that deterrent sentences are necessary because with every person arrested for trafficking in dangerous drugs there are hundreds who go unarrested. Hong Kong’s night scene is crowded with young people being lured into drug addiction. And so the court has to look with grave severity on sentencing drug traffickers.
As Mr McGuinniety had pointed out, the sentencing guidelines have been laid down for ketamine and ecstasy in the case of Hii Siew Cheng, and the Court of Appeal recommended that for trafficking in 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, a sentence of 6 to 9 years’ starting point is appropriate.
So in this case, the total quantity of ketamine is 168.5 grammes, which merits a sentence of between 7 to 7½ years as a starting point.
I have taken into account everything said on his behalf by Mr McGuinniety and the fact that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and so he deserves a one‑third discount. I will adopt the lower of the starting point which I have mentioned, which is 7 years, and reducing that by one-third will give a sentence of 4 years and 8 months.
So the defendant will go to prison for 4 years and 8 months.