He pleaded guilty before me and was duly convicted after he admitted to the summary of facts.
The facts disclose that, on the day in question, a team of police officers were carrying out an anti-dangerous-drugs operation in the vicinity of the Lei Yue Mun Municipal Services Building when the defendant was observed acting in a furtive and suspicious manner.
The police stopped the defendant and searched a purple-coloured environmental bag carried by the defendant. Inside that bag, the police found a black plastic bag containing three transparent resealable plastic bags. These resealable bags contained what was later confirmed to be a total of 720 grammes of a powder containing 530 grammes of ketamine, with a street value of around $87,840.
The defendant was arrested. Under caution, the defendant admitted he acted as a courier for the delivery of ketamine in return for a reward of $500.
The defendant was later interviewed by the police by way of a video recorded interview. The defendant told the police he met a male, Wo Jai, at an amusement game centre and this man asked him to pick up the drugs at a public toilet and deliver the drugs to another public toilet in the Lei Yue Mun area. He was arrested by the police when he was doing the delivery and he had not received payment yet.
The defendant also claimed that he himself consumed 200 and 300 dollars worth per day on ketamine and he was financially supported by his family.
The background and mitigation. The defendant is 23 years of age, not a first offender. In 2006 he was sentenced to 18 months’ probation order for an offence of behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place. In 2010, for an offence of possession of dangerous drug, he was sentenced to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre with no conviction recorded.
According to the antecedent statement, he studied up to Form 2 level, worked as a transportation worker earning $15,000 per month, but since January 2013 he had been unemployed.
And, in mitigation, the defendant’s counsel, Ms Judy Ma, submitted to me that the defendant’s previous record was not too bad, on the basis that the conviction for disorderly conduct when he was placed on a probation order, he had not committed any offence within three years, so that was a spent record, and, further, of course, the DATC order was with no conviction recorded.
So, apart from this area, Ms Ma also told me more about the defendant’s background.
Although the defendant basically lived with his mother and a younger sister, the father is still around. I was informed that the defendant’s father works as a security guard. Because he suffered from mental illness and he could not afford to let the boss know about that, he had to go to the Mainland to have treatment, so he turned up either spending time in China or at work, so he does not really stay at home.
I was informed that the defendant’s mother works as a dishwasher in a restaurant, who had to work very hard to support the family. The defendant’s younger sister works as a saleslady.
I was informed that the defendant’s mother, who is in court now, is very worried about the defendant. She was in tears when she was talking to Ms Judy Ma this morning. She blames herself for not teaching the defendant well, resulting in the defendant now committing this offence. She is also worried that the defendant would be in jail for a long time and she might not see the defendant again.
Ms Ma also told me a bit more about the defendant yourself. In fact, apart from working as a delivery worker or transportation worker, you have done various kinds of work, like at a construction site, waiter or working as a cook.
I was informed that when you were working as a delivery worker in Lei Yue Mun selling seafood for a boss, you were under pressure to get more sales, but you were not able to do that and you were dismissed and, because of that, you took up taking dangerous drugs again and you became deeper and deeper hooked and so you were not able to work at all, so your mother was basically supporting you, and because you came to know these people who supplied drugs to you and so you were used by these people to deliver drugs and I was informed that this was the very first time that you agreed and had done the delivery.
You had been in custody for almost a year - it is, in fact, a year already, yes - and I was informed that you are remorseful and you have been thinking over this matter again and again. I was also informed that you already have formed a plan in your mind. You are aware what the guidelines are for an offence of this nature. You plan to work as an apprentice of a cook when you come out of jail later and you ask for a lower starting point.
Ms Ma, very fairly, apart from telling me all that I have already mentioned about your background, admits that basically there is not very much she can say in a case of this nature, that, for a case of this nature, because of the seriousness of it, apart from the plea, which would warrant a one-third discount, there is really not much that one can do.
Now, I have already said that trafficking in a dangerous drug is a serious offence and offenders are severely punished when caught. In the case of the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, and the Court of Appeal has set down guidelines for the trafficking of ketamine, and trafficking 300 to 600 grammes of ketamine, the appropriate starting point is within the range of 9 to 12 years.
Of course, the quantity is one of the factors that I have to take into account, so the quantity involved is 530 grammes.
But that is not the only factor that I have to consider: I would consider your background and all the circumstances of this case.
You are still a young man. Although you had those two previous convictions, but, as rightly pointed out by your counsel, comparing to other defendants, it is not really a very bad record. You certainly have no previous conviction of trafficking dangerous drug.
In the circumstances, I am prepared to adopt a lower starting point in your case within the range. I will adopt a starting point of 9 years. I will give you the one-third discount. I cannot see any other reason to further reduce the sentence.
So for this offence you are sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.