HKSAR v. So Kwok Sing
|
HCCC390/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 390 OF 2011 -----------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording --------------------------------- COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Two other males were seen by the police officer to be emerging from the corridor leading to the public toilet in a shopping mall. A packet was passed between them and was subsequently thrown down one level when officers tried to intercept them. A fingerprint on the packaging material lifted was found to belong to the defendant. That package contained 231.25 grammes of a powder containing 200.41 grammes of ketamine. About five months later, the defendant was intercepted whilst returning to Hong Kong via the Lok Ma Chau border. He was in possession of drugs wrapped in transparent adhesive tape, placed in the inner side of both his thighs and shanks. Those were analysed to contain 1.47 kilogrammes of a powder containing 1.17 kilogrammes of ketamine. The defendant, upon his arrest, admitted to have delivered the drugs in the 1st charge to Tseung Kwan O, and in relation to the 2nd charge, he admitted that, before interception, he was delivering the drugs from Mainland China to Hong Kong to reduce the debt owed by him to Ah Dick. The market value of the larger amount of drugs was about HK$166,000 whilst, for the smaller amount, around $45,000. The defendant is now aged 28. He has two previous convictions. The first one related to a possession of dangerous drugs charge. In 2001, for a breach of probation order, he was sentenced to the DATC. I am told that he was cleared of his drug addiction after his release from the DATC. By way of mitigation, the defendant’s counsel told me that because of his father’s illness, he had borrowed money to enable the father to receive treatment, which caused him to commit the first offence. Unfortunately, because the drugs involved in the first offence were lost in transit, so he committed the second offence five months later. In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account the nature of the offences, the drugs involved, its separate quantities and the sentencing tariff. I have also borne in mind that the two offences are about five months apart. I have also taken into account the defendant’s plea and mitigation put forward by counsel on his behalf and I have perused his handwritten letter. For the other two males arrested in relation to the 1st charge, the trafficking in 200.41 grammes of ketamine, I adopted a starting point of 8 years. I adopt the same for this defendant in respect of the 1st charge, 8 years’ imprisonment. Given the one-third discount for his plea of guilty, he will go to prison for 64 months. For the 2nd charge involving 1.17 kilogrammes of ketamine, taking into account the cross-border element, I adopt a starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 10 years on his plea. Taking into account totality, I am of a view that an overall sentence of 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment after plea is appropriate in this case. So I order 1 year and 4 months of the 1st charge to run consecutively. | ||||||||||||||||||||||