COURT: Defendant, you have been found guilty after trial by the jury of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug contrary to section (4)(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
They have found that you, together with Wong, inside the subway at the junction of Jockey Club and Po Shek Wu Road, Sheung Shui, New Territories, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 1.93 kilograms of a powder containing 1.45 kilograms of ketamine.
The evidence in this case is that on 5 September 2012 you and Wong Sai-hang, two young males, were intercepted by Customs officers in the subway in the Sheung Shui area. In each of your shoulder bags there was a bag containing approximately one kilogram of the dangerous drug ketamine.
The Customs officer went to intercept you both as he had seen Wong take out one bag from the shoulder bag you were carrying and believed that to be suspicious. The drugs were contained within the one green plastic bag in each of your shoulder bags, and in each one of these green plastic bags were four red smaller bags. Each of the red smaller bags had the characters “鐵觀音” which is a type of tea.
It is clear from the jury’s verdict that they were sure that you knew that there were drugs in those bags, that is that there was the drugs in the eight red small bags and within the green plastic bag.
In your video-recorded interview, you told the Customs officers that you had received some $3,000 as a reward or payment for the delivery of them. You had given $1,500 to Wong for his part in this drug delivery. I will just say qualify that is not what you said in the record of interview, but this is what the evidence was.
At the time of commission of this offence, you were young, that is 16 years of age, but almost turning 17, that is you were nine days away from your 17th birthday. You are 18 years of age today. You have a clear record. You grew up in Shenzhen and came to Hong Kong in 2008 when you were 13.
It is a tragedy to see young people like yourselves and the co-accused Wong being involved in these very very serious offences. It appears to me from the evidence that the amount that you received for delivering these drugs was certainly tempting as it was fast and easy money.
In many situations, fast and easy money when earned almost inevitably involves some sort of criminal element or offence. You would have known that $3,000 for this one short delivery was almost half of what you were earning a month.
Defendant, I am informed by the prosecution - and your counsel has also confirmed to me and I also have before me the transcript of the audio recording of the sentence of Wong Sai-hang, the original co-accused in this case, as I am sure you well know - he pleaded guilty to this offence. He is in a very different position from yourself particularly when it comes to sentence.
Mr Ross, your counsel, has urged me to take a similar and not a different starting point to that of which Wong was sentenced.
Despite what the judge in that case said that you were the mastermind in this offence, and you roped in the 2nd defendant, I do not consider a sentence starting pint should be different or higher from that of the 2nd defendant.
On the evidence in this case, the masterminds were Lo Sai and Sai Ming who had roped you into committing this offence. You, on the evidence before this court, were a knowing drug courier. On the evidence in this case, Lo Sai and Sai Ming had contacted Wong. In fact, on the facts of this case you and Wong were both drug couriers. In those circumstances, I consider there should be no disparity between the sentences when I sentence you.
The only disparity here would bethat Wong received credit for his plea of guilty. I cannot give you any credit because you did not plead guilty.
I am no doubt sure that your counsel, Mr Ross, has informed you that the courts will give a one-third discount for a plea of guilty. This credit cannot be afforded to you.
As Mr Ross has referred me to the case of Lau Tak Ming, it also says there it must be borne in mind that these offences are of the utmost gravity; age, the young or the old or the maimed are not special mitigating features - though there it says extreme youth may call for special consideration.
At the age you committed the offence of almost being 17, I do not consider that you were of extreme youth. Therefore that, in my view, does not count for a further mitigating factor.
The sentencing guidelines for trafficking in quantities of ketamine are laid down in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng. For quantities of over 1,000 grammes of ketamine, a sentence of 14 years and upwards is indicated.
In this case you had been trafficking in 1,450 grammes of ketamine, or 1.4 kilograms.
I adopt as a starting point a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. This is the same starting point as that adopted by the judge who sentenced Wong Sai-hang.
There are no mitigating factors that will reduce that term, and you are, therefore, sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.