CRIMINAL CASE NO. 424 OF 2011
COURT: On 12 July 2012, this defendant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The drug was 250.73 grammes of a powder
containing a narcotic quantity of 195.61 grammes of ketamine. At the time of his arrest, the estimated retail value of the ketamine was HK$26,831.
The Summary of Facts which was admitted by the defendant showed that patrolling police officers in uniform saw the defendant together with a male and a female companion acting suspiciously near a public toilet in Yan Oi Court, Kwun Tong. Their behaviour aroused the suspicion of the police party and a chase ensued through a nearby alley up to Hip Wo Street. At the conclusion of the chase, the 1st and 2nd defendants were intercepted but this defendant, who is D3, managed to escape.
At the time of the arrest, the 1st defendant was carrying a handbag. On searching it, police found a black plastic bag containing a resealable plastic bag containing what police suspected was ketamine. They also found a wallet containing the 3rd defendant’s ID card and other papers, as well as a mobile phone belonging to the 3rd defendant.
The 1st and 2nd defendants, who maintained pleas of not guilty, were arrested and tried. The jury of six jurors found unanimously that they were guilty of trafficking. Reports were called for and they await sentencing later this month.
The next day, police officers attended at the home of this defendant who, when asked, was unable to produce his identity card. He told police he had lost his wallet and also the identity card on 8 June 2011. He was arrested for trafficking in a dangerous drug and, at the time, claimed it was for his own consumption.
Later, under caution, at a video-recorded interview, this defendant said he had gone with the 1st and 2nd defendants to a shopping centre. He had earlier met a man known to him as Ah Sing, who offered to sell him ketamine and gave instructions where he could collect it from the water tank in the first cubicle of the 1st floor toilet of the shopping centre. The price was said to be $10,000 to be paid by the 3rd defendant later.
He contacted the 1st and 2nd defendants to collect the ketamine with him. Having retrieved the bag as instructed, he put it into the 1st defendant’s handbag. They were about to leave when the police party saw them.
Subsequent analysis by the Government Chemist established the nature and quantity of the drug as set out in the charge.
This defendant has a clear record. His antecedents statement confirms that he left school after completing his form 3 education. He was 17 at the time of the offence. After completing his education, he had worked as a cook in a restaurant until the time of his arrest. He was, up until the time of his arrest, living with his grandmother, his parents being involved with business concerns in another part of Hong Kong.
In mitigation, counsel put before the court two letters, one written by the defendant himself, the other written by his mother on behalf of the parents. In the defendant’s letter, he described his family life. He said that he became acquainted with bad friends because he was left alone too much. He felt depressed at the time. He began to hang out with bad friends, as he described them. He started to take drugs and, eventually, this incident resulted. He expressed extreme regret for what he had done and sought leniency for sentence. He said he had come to an understanding with his parents.
The mother’s letter sets out the fact that she and her husband had been working to support their son. Eventually, in 2009, when she started to run a dessert shop, she had to work day and night and her husband had to come over after he had finished his own work and help in the shop. She said that during that time, the defendant was totally neglected by the parents. They lived in a remote place and so did not see him very often.
Their son moved to live with the grandmother. Their communication with their son was sparse and the parents concede that, as a result of their neglect towards the defendant, he became mixed up with bad friends and became involved in this incident. They sought leniency for their son in terms of sentence.
As parents, they have been in touch with the Welfare Officers in the Correctional Services Institution. They have also co-ordinated with the Christian Fellowship of Pastoral Care for Youth and they are determined to assist their son to show his repentance by serving his sentence properly.
The guideline sentences for ketamine are set out in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD No. 1. Based on the narcotic quantity of 50 to 300 grammes, the sentencing range for sentence is 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.
The only cogent mitigation in this case for the 3rd defendant is his plea of guilty which was notified to the court before trial and which saved time and costs and also shows his remorse. I note that the parents are very anxious to take sole blame for this neglect of their son and I have sympathy for them in doing so.
Counsel for the defendant relies on the circumstances set out in paragraph 99 of Hii Siew Cheng which refers to a person in similar circumstances to this defendant being treated more leniently in terms of having the sentencing tariff reduced.
In this particular case, I have decided that it is justified in the circumstances, to take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, to give him full credit for his plea of guilty and sentence him to 4 years’ imprisonment and that is the sentence I pass.