Background and the Facts
The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug in the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on 28 March 2014. This morning, he confirmed his pleas and accepted the summary of facts.
Briefly, in the evening of 7 October 2013, the defendant was stopped by the police on the ground floor of a public housing estate. At the time, the defendant was carrying a rucksack. Upon search, the police found the ketamine particularised in the 1st Count.
The defendant was arrested and under caution, he admitted that the drug was for sale. The defendant then volunteered to take the police to the staircase of the building and to his home premises in order to retrieve the other drugs. As a result, three other lots of drugs were found at the staircase between the 3rd and the 4th floors, that between the 4th and the 5th floors, and under the defendant’s bed. These were respectively the subject matters of the 2nd to the 4th Counts.
In total, the ketamine seized by the police was 253.13 grammes of solid containing 202.11 grammes of ketamine. The estimated street value was about HK$31,000.
Mitigation
The defendant is 18 years old and has a clear record. He was born in the mainland, but later moved to live in Hong Kong in 2007. The defendant was educated up to form 4 level. After quitting school, the defendant had worked as a bar attendant and an air conditioning technician with a monthly salary of $6,000 to $8,000. The defendant is single and was living with his family at the time of his arrest.
In mitigation, Mr Ho, for the defendant, informed the court that the defendant’s natural father left him before his birth. Thereafter, the defendant’s mother took care of the defendant single-handedly. In 2001, the defendant’s mother remarried and she later gave birth to a daughter.
In 2007, the defendant moved to live in Hong Kong with his mother and step-father. Letters written by the defendant, his mother, step-father, sister, teacher and a LegCo member were submitted to the court. In short, the defendant was described as an intelligent and good-natured person. His academic results were satisfactory; in fact, his academic standard was sort of reflected in the letter he wrote to the court.
It was only in 2012 when his mother told the defendant about his natural father, that he could not stand the stress and sorrow and he then had a depression. The defendant was taken to see a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist. He was advised to cease schooling. It was during this period that he met friends in clubs. Afterwards, he was persuaded to take the drug in order to earn some quick money for his entertainment.
The Sentence
In SJ v Hii Siew Cheng & Another [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariffs for trafficking in ketamine. For trafficking 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, a term of imprisonment of 6 to 9 years is called for.
In the present case, although there are a total of four counts, the facts were closely linked and all the offences were discovered on the same day. It is therefore appropriate to add the different amounts together in determining an overall starting point (see for example HKSAR v Wong To CACC 508/2000, 7 August 2001, unreported).
Having considered the facts of this case and that a total of 202.11 grammes of ketamine was involved, I am of the view that a starting point of 7 and a half years is appropriate and I would adopt this as the starting point for each of the four counts.
The defendant pleaded guilty. He will receive a one-third reduction in sentence. 7 and a half years reduced by one‑third is 5 years’ imprisonment.
Moreover, I notice that after the defendant’s arrest, he immediately volunteered to take the police to retrieve the other drugs, the existence of which was apparently not known to the police at the time. While the police might eventually be able to find the drugs in the defendant’s home premises upon the house search, the same could not be said about the drugs hidden at the staircases. In other words, without the defendant’s cooperation, the offences in respect of the 2nd and 3rd Counts might not have come to light.
Therefore, I would give the defendant a further reduction of 9 months to take account of his frank admission and full cooperation.
Where serious offences like trafficking in a dangerous drug are concerned, the defendant’s relatively young age and clear record could not be of any significance in his mitigation. However, in the present case, and having considered the defendant’s background, I am prepared to give him a further reduction of 3 months.
As a result, in addition to the one-third reduction for his plea, the defendant will be given a further reduction of 1 year. The defendant is therefore to serve a term of 4 years for each of Counts 1 to 4.
Applying the totality principle, I order that all the terms for the four counts are to be served wholly concurrently, resulting in a total term of 4 years.