CRIMINAL CASE NO. 481 OF 2011
COURT: This defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 23 December 2011 to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The dangerous drug was 180.91 grammes of a powder containing 145.98 grammes of ketamine. Before me the defendant reaffirmed his plea and confirmed the facts he admitted at committal.
Those facts show that police on an anti-dangerous drug operation at Shun Tin Estate executed a search warrant and found the defendant and two others in a flat. Four plastic bags of suspected dangerous drug were found under the pillow of a bed on the premises.
The defendant was arrested and under caution admitted trafficking,saying that he sold the drugs to make money for his family. Later in a Video Interview he admitted that he agreed with a man he knew as “Ah Keung” to sell the dangerous drugs for a reward of HK$3,000.
Analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed the nature and quantity of the drug as set out in the charge. The estimated street value of the drug was HK$20,081.
The defendant was born in Hong Kong, he is aged 30 now; he was educated to Form 4 level. He was working as a decoration worker at the time of his arrest. He was single and lived with his mother.
He has a criminal record which began in 1999 with an AOABH for which he was placed on probation for 12 months. In the year 2000 he was convicted of wounding and sent to detention centre. In 2003 he was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. In 2007 he was charged with criminal damage and two charges of common assault for which he was fined.
I note that there is only one previous drug offence before this case.
Letters have been put before me from the defendant himself expressing his remorse; from his mother expressing her remorse and outlining the health disadvantages she is suffering under at the present time, mainly as the result of this case.
I have also seen a note from the employer of the defendant who says that since 2008 he has been working for him and he has been hard-working and has taken a serious attitude to his work throughout that time. The employer said that he would be prepared to reemploy the defendant when he is released from prison.
The narcotic quantity in this case is 145.98 grammes which comes within the band of 50 to 300 grammes for which the guideline sentence is 6 to 9 years.
The only mitigation of any cogency is his plea, although I note that he has been taking educational courses while he is in prison so that he can assist his mother when he is released from prison.
He is entitled to the full one-third discount. I take a starting point of 6 years in this case and sentence the defendant to 4 years’ imprisonment.
I would urge on him to take every opportunity he can to improve his educational qualifications so that he doesn’t need to resort to crime when he is released from prison.