HKSAR v. Lee Chi Wai
|
HCCC 529/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 529 OF 2014 -----------------
--------------------------------- COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a single offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The actual narcotic involved is 617 grammes of ketamine and 17.21 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride which is commonly known as “Ice”. The facts are as follows. At about 1500 hours on 26 July of last year, police officers executed a warrant to search premises on the 1st Floor, Block 7, Bela Vista Villa, Cheung Chau Beach Road, Cheung Chau, therein they found you and five other persons. The premises themselves were owned by a holiday company and you were responsible for renovation. You said that the other people were your friends. However, a paper with traces of suspected dangerous drugs was found in one of the others’ bags. But that is irrelevant to this case. The room was searched, and a large amount of dangerous drugs, a quantity of resealable plastic bags, two “Ice” inhaling devices and electronic scales were found. Arrested and cautioned, you said, “The perfume and pork belong to me. They are not related to the others.” Later, interviewed under caution, you explained the perfume meant ketamine and pork “Ice”. You admitted the dangerous drugs to be for self-consumption and selling to others. You acknowledged the various exhibits. The renovation work had been contracted out to you. Later analysis of the drugs revealed 852.83 grammes of powder containing 617 grammes of ketamine and 17.47 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 17.21 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The estimated street value of all drugs involved is about $105,284. You admit to two previous convictions, but they are both of some age, both spent although one is drug-related. For the purpose of sentence, I am going to treat you as ostensibly of good character though that is not particularly relevant to this type of offence. I am told by your counsel, Mr Chau, that you agree with the antecedent statement. Briefly, that tells me that you are Hong Kong born, 44 years old and educated to Form 3. You are a single man. You reside with your mother and two sisters. You worked as a decoration worker since you were 15, and you claim that you have been drug-addicted since you were 16. On your behalf, and in view of the indication I gave, Mr Chau has entered very limited mitigation because in fact there is very little that can be said in these circumstances. I do record my thanks for the advance skeleton submissions on approaches to sentence. The main point of mitigation in this case is of course of your plea of guilty. As I say, I am treating you as a person of clear or ostensibly clear record given the age of the previous conviction and the fact they are spent. It is also to your credit that you extricated the other people in the premises from any blame in this matter. In short, you took the blame upon your own shoulders, and accepted full responsibility. I note that you say that you would have used some of the drugs yourself, but that has not been advanced particularly as a point of mitigation. There is a very large amount of drugs indeed. I am sure you will appreciate that trafficking in dangerous drugs, especially “Ice” and ketamine, is a very serious offence, and you are fully aware that, quite rightly, you will face a considerable period of imprisonment. However, your plea of guilty has alleviated that to some extent. I turn now to the sentence. Let me explain my approach. To achieve a fair and just sentence, I have adopted the combined approach. First, I have taken the notional sentence for the largest drug by quantity, that is the ketamine. The range is in the range of 600 to 1,000 grammes, being 12 to 14 years. Given the quantity involved here, therefore, the starting point would have been, if it had only been that amount of ketamine, about 12 years. The other dangerous drug is of course the methamphetamine hydrochloride, the “Ice”. The range for this quantity of “Ice” would have been 7 to 11 years, that is for 10 to 70 grammes. That is on the scale, the adjusted scale imposed by HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, No 2, Court of Criminal Appeal, No 524 of 2011.HHHkhk The actual quantity involved being some 17.21 grammes of “Ice”, and if this alone, a starting point of 7 years and 9 months would have been appropriate. This is where I move to the combined approach. I have considered what quantity of ketamine would attract a sentence of 7 years and 9 months, starting point. That would fall within the range of 50 to 300 grammes, that is 6 to 9 years. So 7 years and 9 months would have equated to about 200 grammes of ketamine. What I have then done is I have added this notional amount of ketamine to the amount of ketamine, that is 617 grammes of actual ketamine with the notional extra 200 grammes of ketamine. And therefore I am sentencing you on the basis of 817 grammes of ketamine, fully aware that this is a notional figure. The starting point I look for that falls within the range, and I shall refer to the range now, and that would fall within the range of 9 to 12 years. I am sorry. That is within the range of 12 to 14 years. I correct that. That is 600 to 1,000 grammes. So the starting point I adopt is one of 13 years. You are entitled to a discount of one-third for your plea of guilty, therefore, you will be sentenced to 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. | ||||||||||||||||||||||