The facts are unusual in that the initial investigation and seizure were done by the defendant’s parents. On the evening of 25 March 2013, the defendant’s parents went to the flat where the defendant was living and found him naked and moving sluggishly. The defendant’s father suspected the defendant had been taking drugs and searched the flat. He found one bag of suspected dangerous drugs on the computer desk and nine bags in the bedside drawer.
The defendant’s father, worried about his son’s welfare, called the police. The police arrived and conducted a further search. Eight more bags of suspected dangerous drug were found in the bedside drawer and an electronic scale and resealable plastic bags were also found. The defendant was arrested and cautioned and, in response, he said the dangerous drugs were for his own consumption.
In a subsequent video interview, the defendant exercised his right to remain silent.
Analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed the quantity and nature of the drug as set out in the particulars of the charge. The estimated street value of the drug was HK$27,865.
The defendant now admits that he possessed the dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
The defendant has two previous convictions, one for a money-laundering offence in 2010 and one for possession of dangerous drugs in 2011. For the possession of dangerous drugs, he was fined.
Antecedent information showed that the defendant, who is aged 27, was born in Hong Kong and educated up to P4 level. Before his arrest, he was working as a casual decoration worker. He was living alone and claimed to be a drug addict.
In mitigation, I was advised that the defendant is married with a wife in China and he has a son, who is now aged 3½, by his former girlfriend. Defendant is the only son of the family. His parents separated when he was 17 years old. His father had a poultry store but eventually his business was forced to close and the father then moved in to live with the grandfather.
At this stage, the defendant had nowhere to go, was forced to live on his own and faced many difficulties. It was at this time that he began taking drugs. He said he had been taking drugs for about seven years. Unfortunately, that dependence on drugs has caused him to lose control of his bladder and urinary functions. He suffers regularly from severe ulcer pains. This appears to be the result of taking ketamine over any kind of extended period.
The family has been very supportive of the defendant and over the past year, the defendant has also received assistance from a Christian pastor while he has been in prison. I am urged to take into account his guilty plea which shows his remorse and his deep regret for committing the offence. His parents and his pastor both say that over the year that he has been on remand, he has gathered insight into his personal situation and, in particular, his drug habit. He feels no anger towards his parents for reporting him to the police, realising that they were doing the best that they could for him at the time.
The defendant proposes to use his time in prison to improve his situation and in particular to obtain some skills. I am advised that his mother has gone into a state of deep depression over this whole incident and is under psychiatric care at the present time.
The tariff for sentence in relation to ketamine is set out in the case of The Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng & Another [2008] 3 HKC 323. For a quantity of narcotic between 50 and 300 grammes, the sentencing range is 6 to 9 years. In this case, the total narcotic quantity was 175.22 grammes.
The main mitigation in this case is the defendant’s plea of guilty to this charge and for that, he is entitled to the full discount of one-third.
In this case, I must acknowledge with great admiration the very brave action of the defendant’s parents both for investigating their son’s behaviour and for having the courage to call the police when they realised what he was doing. It must have been both difficult and painful for them to turn their son over to the police so their behaviour shows real love and genuine concern for their son’s welfare and is a shining example for other parents to follow.
Although a long sentence is inevitable, the time that the defendant spends in gaol may save him from a lifetime of going in and out of gaol with drug offences. Unfortunately, it was not in sufficient time to save him from the very serious bladder dysfunction problems that he has at the present time. The consumption and use of ketamine, even over a short period of time, can be very damaging and the damage is often permanent and this effect of ketamine is too often ignored or may not be known or appreciated by ketamine consumers.
In this case I was going to take a starting point of 7 years but, having considered the mitigation and the particular circumstances of this case, I have decided to take a starting point of 6 years. I take a starting point of 6 years, discount that by one-third and sentence the defendant to 4 years’ imprisonment.
I would just like the defendant to recognise that he owes his parents a great debt.