HKSAR v. Chong Ho Yin

DCCC 261/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 261 OF 2014

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty today to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The particulars are that on 14 January this year in Wai Bun Building on Un Chau Street, Sham Shui Po, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in ketamine, namely 155.71 grammes of a powder containing 114.90 grammes of ketamine.

2.The facts of the case are straightforward.  On 14 January police officers were conducting an anti-narcotics operation in that particular building.  They found hidden in three separate places packets of suspected ketamine.  Two places were behind a fire hydrant, one being between the 6th and 7th floor, and the second between the 7th and 8th floor.  The last position was in an incense container at the staircase between the 7th and 8th floor.  All they had to do is wait for someone to pick up the drugs. 

3.At about 4 pm on that same day, they observed the defendant taking something from all three positions and putting whatever he took into his pocket.  The defendant was stopped on the 7th floor.  They searched his person and in his pocket they found four transparent resealable plastic bags containing 65 packets of suspected ketamine. 

4.At the scene he was arrested and cautioned.  And under caution, he made a full admission that he was acting as a courier for a reward of $1,500.  He explained to the police that he was in financial difficulty and the reason he committed this offence.

5.Later, under caution, he again admitted the offence and offered more detail.  He explained who offered him $1,500, where and when. 

6.There was a home search and nothing suspicious was found.

7.I accept that the defendant was carrying the drugs for a reward.  He was acting as a drug mule, not the mastermind.

8.The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea today.

9.I have heard he is only 21 years old. Previously, he had no criminal convictions.  He is married with an 18-month-old son.  Today his parents and his wife are here to support him in court.  All three have written letters of mitigation. 

10.I have been told that the defendant was working when he left school and has worked in several jobs.  However, not long before his arrest, he lost his job.  He became desperate financially.  He had responsibilities to his wife and son and could not make ends meet.  That is why an offer of $1,500 to carry drugs from A to B was attractive.

11.The defendant has been in remand since his arrest which has meant his wife has had to find a job and his son is being cared for by his mother-in-law. 

12.The defendant may be young and of a clear record, but the quantity of ketamine is significant, and a term of imprisonment is inevitable.

13.I have considered the guidelines of The Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  That authority gives guidelines for trafficking ketamine and where between 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, an appropriate starting point would be between 6 to 9 years.  Mathematically speaking, the quantity of drugs here would attract a starting point of about 6 years and 9 months. 

14.Guidelines are there to assist.  But factors, be they mitigating or aggravating, will be relevant and can be taken into account.

15.Defendant, please stand up.  I will bear in mind that you are 21, you pleaded guilty, you when you were arrested fully co-operated with the police, and you previously had a clear record. 

16.After considering these mitigating factors as well as the facts of the case and the quantity of dangerous drugs, I would take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment. 

17.You are entitled to a discount of one-third for your plea.  Accordingly, for this offence, you are sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.  Understand?

DEFENDANT: Understood.