In sentencing I have considered the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, in particular the type and quantity of the dangerous drug involved, the background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows: with a search warrant police searched a residential flat. On a tea table at the living room two plastic bags of a total of 2.80 grammes of a solid containing 1.80 grammes of ketamine were found. Also found were two electronic scales and a bag of 16 smaller plastic bags.
Upon further search, eight plastic bags of a total of 100 grammes of a solid containing 80 grammes of ketamine and three tinfoil packs containing 740 grammes of a solid containing 560 grammes of ketamine were found in a wardrobe inside the bedroom.
Under caution, the defendant admitted that he had bought the ketamine and then stored and repacked it for the purpose of selling it.
I was told that the defendant is 24 years of age. He received education up to form 3 and had then been employed as a transportation worker, waiter and warehouse worker. He is single. At the time of arrest, he was working part-time as a transportation worker.
He has previous convictions, including three convictions of possession of dangerous drugs, one conviction of theft, and one conviction of robbery. The last two offences were committed 10 years ago when the defendant was very young. For his latest conviction for possession of dangerous drugs, the defendant was sentenced to receive treatment in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. He was discharged on 28 February 2013. In less than two months after his discharge, he committed this offence, a very serious drug-related offence.
Learned counsel, Mr Davies, urged me to take into account the following matters. This is the first time the defendant has committed the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He committed the offence since he was in need of money to get married and finance his consumption of ketamine. He had been a regular user of ketamine and this is clearly shown in his criminal conviction record. Indeed, the defendant intended to reserve part of the dangerous drugs found for his own consumption. He accepted responsibility as soon as the drug was found, gave detailed confession during the investigation and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.
His girlfriend has left him but his family remains supportive to him. He is remorseful and determined to turn over a new leaf. He has started studies in economies and will enrol in a course run by the Open University.
The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was ketamine. The total narcotic content was 641.80 grammes. The Court of Appeal suggested, in SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, that a sentence of 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment should be considered for trafficking in ketamine if the narcotic content is 600 to 1,000 grammes. In the circumstances of the present case, I do not find there are good grounds to depart from the tariff.
I am asked to take into account that the defendant intended to consume part of the dangerous drugs. Bearing in mind the approach suggested by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau, CACC 366/2000, and in the light of the criminal conviction record of the defendant, I accept his assertion and do not think a Newton hearing is called for. The quantity of the dangerous drug which might have been reserved for this purpose must be insignificant compared with the total quantity found. In my judgment, it is appropriate to lower the starting point by 6 months.
In all the circumstances, I adopt an ultimate starting point of 11 years and 9 months. The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty plea. Having considered what learned counsel said on the defendant’s behalf, I will give him one more month’s discount.
Defendant, please stand up. By reason of the matters aforesaid, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 7 years and 9 months.