COURT: The defendant, Mr Law Chi-ho, pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug during the committal proceedings. The offence is contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
The particulars of offence are that the defendant, on the 24th day of November 2013, outside No. 1143 Canton Road, Mongkok, Kowloon in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 250.74 grammes of a powder containing 198.28 grammes of ketamine.
The defendant is committed to this court for sentencing.
Facts admitted
At about 2125 hours on 24 November 2013, police stopped a taxi for checking at the road block set up at Bute Street near Canton Road. The defendant was sitting at the rear passenger seat of the taxi holding a rucksack in his hands. The police officers found a black plastic bag inside the rucksack. Inside the black plastic bag there was a transparent plastic bag containing the dangerous drug set out in the charge which was 250.74 grammes of a powder containing 198.28 grammes of ketamine.
When being arrested and cautioned, the defendant said that someone gave him $300 to deliver the drugs to Grand Tower. In the video recorded interview subsequently conducted, the defendant said that his friend “Ah Hei” had introduced to him a person who was going to offer him a job. On 24 November 2013, at 2115 hours the defendant received the dangerous drug in question from this person at Panda Hotel and he took a taxi to deliver the dangerous drug to Grand Tower, but was intercepted by the police. He had not yet received the $300 reward promised by that person.
Criminal Record
The defendant has three previous convictions of conspiracy to obtain property by deception, all entered on 16 April 2013 for which the defendant was sent to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and ordered to pay compensation of $4,797.
The defendant also has a conviction of possession of equipment fit and intended for smoking dangerous drugs on 8 March 2013 for which he was sent to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and for which the court ordered no conviction to be recorded.
Mitigation
Counsel for the defendant points out that the defendant was aged 16 when he committed the offence. The counsel submits to court mitigation letters written by the defendant, his mother, five aunts and godparents.
The defendant says in the letter that his parents divorced when he was seven or eight years old and the father left behind debts of several hundred thousand dollars. It dealt a big blow to the mother who, as a result, suffered from depression.
The defendant stupidly committed the present offence in a bid to make more money to ease the life of the mother. He regrets for not listening to his mother and repeatedly committing offences. He now knows he is wrong. He feels the love of his mother who visits him in prison every Sunday and he hopes that he can be released as soon as possible so as to turn a new leaf and to look after his mother who he has come to know suffers from colon cancer and has a tumour on her face.
The mother repeats in the letter the unhappy family affairs and says that the defendant was active in sports and good at rugby before he turned wayward in the year he was promoted from form 1 to form 2. She blames herself for not understanding the feeling of the defendant and not taking good care of the defendant. She attempted to commit suicide and has since been receiving mental treatment. She asks for leniency for the defendant. Counsel for the defence also submits to court two medical reports to show that the mother has been under treatment for depression and psychological counselling since 2011.
The authors of the other mitigation letters all express good opinions of the defendant and ask the court to treat the defendant leniently and to give him a chance to rehabilitate.
The counsel for the defence points out that the defendant, due to his tender age and background, was made an easy target and was made use of by the dangerous drugs traffickers to deliver the dangerous drugs in question. The defendant has now learned a bitter lesson and is deeply remorseful. Counsel for the defence asks the court to adopt a lenient approach in sentencing the defendant, emphasising that a young offender like the defendant will forever be grateful to the court which will help tremendously in the rehabilitation of the defendant
Counsel for the defence urges the court to depart from the mathematical approach as in the sentencing guidelines and adopt a lower starting point to enable an earlier release for defendant so that he can spend more time with his mother.
Sentence
The Court of Appeal set down clear sentencing guidelines for the offence of trafficking in ketamine. For a quantity of 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine, the normal starting point is 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment. The amount of ketamine involved in the present case is 198.28 grammes. The normal starting point is therefore 7 years 9 months’ imprisonment.
The defendant was born on 3 January 1997 and, as pointed out by the counsel for the defence, was aged 16 years when he committed the present offence. Although he is of tender age, he does not belong to the category of extreme youth in which the court should give special consideration in sentencing.
The court accepts that the defendant was young and naive and was an easy target for the dangerous drug traffickers. He had been exploited by these people to commit the offence. The court must, however, say that the family and personal background of the defendant count very little towards mitigation in an offence of such a serious nature.
The counsel for the defence has made a very thorough and powerful mitigation on behalf of the defendant. Powerful as the mitigation may be, it does not derogate the offence from its seriousness. The court does not see any ground to depart from the sentencing guidelines, but the court is prepared to give the defendant some discount because of his young age.
Having considered the whole circumstances, the court adopts a starting point of 7 years 3 months’ imprisonment. Giving credit to the guilty plea of the defendant, the court sentences him to 4 years 10 months’ imprisonment.