COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate for a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today he pleaded guilty before me again and stands convicted of the offence.
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, background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.
The facts of the case are simple. The defendant was stopped by police offices at the podium of a residential estate. In a bag the defendant was carrying, 11 small bags, each containing ketamine of similar weight, were found. The total weight of the substance was 2.65 kilogrammes of a solid containing 2.21 kilogrammes of ketamine
I was told that the defendant is now 24 years of age. He has completed secondary education and had worked as a waiter and shop assistant.
He is not a first time offender. He has on five previous occasions been convicted of offences of various nature, including robbery, acting as a member of a triad society, burglary and theft. This is the first time he is convicted of an offence relating to drugs.
Learned defence counsel, Mr Parry, urged me to note that when the defendant committed the offence he was only 23 years old, relatively young, and asked me to take into account rehabilitative needs of the defendant. He also stressed that the defendant was not the ringleader. The defendant was only a courier and was promised a reward of a few thousand dollars, which he had never received. The court was also provided with a letter written by the defendant himself, which shows his remorse.
The dangerous drug the defendant trafficked in was ketamine. The total narcotic content was 2.21 kilogrammes. The Court of Appeal suggested in the case of SJ v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 that a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment and upwards should be considered for trafficking in ketamine if the narcotic content is over 1000 grammes.
I also bear in mind the case of HKSAR v Leung Wai Man CACC 24/2007 in which the Court of Appeal stressed that a sentencing court should avoid using arithmetic progression in sentencing. Instead, a court should exercise its discretion according to the circumstances of the case.
I have also considered cases brought to my attention, including the Court of Appeal decision in HKSAR v Sin Chung King CACC 458/2011, which is not meant to set down strictly a tariff. In that case it was suggested that for a case of trafficking in 2 kilogrammes of ketamine, the appropriate starting point should be no less than 18 years.
I note that in Rv Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2HKLR 370 the Court of Appeal said that within the suggested bands, a sentencing judge may take into account factors, such as the profit which may reasonably be expected to be derived from the trafficking act, the degree of involvement of the offender, and his previous history, if any, of narcotic offences.
In all the circumstances, in my judgment, a starting point of 15 years is appropriate and sufficient in the present case.
The defendant pleaded guilty, he is entitled to a one-third discount. Having considered the whole circumstances, including what learned counsel has said on his behalf, in my judgment, this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to in this case.
Defendant, please stand up.
By reasons of the matters aforesaid, I sentence you to 10 years’ imprisonment.