HKSAR v. TANG TSZ YAN AND OTHERS

 DCCC747/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 747 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  These are my reasons for sentence.

2.  The defendants have pleaded guilty to a number of charges involving trafficking in dangerous drugs.

3.  The 1st defendant has pleaded guilty to six charges, including Charge 1, which is a joint charge with the 2nd defendant, and Charges 6 and 8, which are joint charges with the 3rd defendant. Three of these involve trafficking in a crystalline solid containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, that is “Ice”, and three for trafficking in ketamine. In each case, the quantity was small. The offences took place between 28 November 2009 and 4 February 2010.

4.  The 2nd defendant has pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 5, 7, 9 and 10 on the indictment, Count 1 jointly with the 1st defendant. In each case, the trafficking was of a small quantity of a crystalline solid containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, that is “Ice”. The offences took place between 28 November 2009 and 24 March 2010.

5.  The 3rd defendant has pleaded guilty to Counts 6 and 8 on the indictment, joint charges with the 1st defendant. In each case, the trafficking was of a small quantity of ketamine, on or about 25 January 2010 and on 4 February 2010 respectively.

6.  The Summary of Facts was admitted by all the defendants.

7.  This disclosed that since November of 2009, PW1, a police officer, was deployed as an undercover agent and enrolled as a Form 4 student in a secondary school in Tuen Mun. D1 also attended that school. PW1 came to know D1 and, through D1, D3. D3 had been a student in that same school, as a result which she came to know D1. D3 left school in 2008.

8.  On 26 November 2009, the 1st defendant told PW1 that her godmother had “Ice” for sale and asked him if he wanted to order “Ice”. He replied in the affirmative.

9.  Two days later on 28 November 2009, the 1st defendant rang PW1 again and asked him to meet her in Tuen Mun. PW1 asked her for the price of a half portion of “Ice”. The 1st defendant told him $400, which he accepted.

10.  At 3 pm that day, the 1st defendant brought PW1 to outside of Shop No. 33 of Dor Bao Shopping Centre, Tsing Chui Path in Tuen Mun to meet her godmother.

11.  At 3.30 pm the 2nd defendant approached PW1 and the 1st defendant, and the 1st defendant introduced PW1 to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant asked PW1 for the $400. He gave her $400 and she left and returned soon afterwards with a plastic bag with the “Ice”, the subject matter of Charge 1, which she then handed to PW1.

12.  On 1 December 2009, when PW1 and the 1st defendant were chatting, the 1st defendant told PW1 that the 2nd defendant had “Ice” for sale, and asked him if he wanted to order any. He answered in the affirmative and asked the price. The 1st defendant told him it cost $600 and he agreed to that price.

13.  At 12.50 pm on 2 December 2009, the 1st defendant told PW1 to meet her at the Waldorf Garden at Tuen Mun. Upon seeing the 1st defendant, PW1 gave her $600. The 1st defendant told him that she would give him the drugs after school.

14.  At about 7.30 pm, the 1st defendant rang PW1 and asked him to meet her outside Shop No. 33 at Dor Bao Shopping Centre, No. 9, Tsing Chui Path in Tuen Mun, and it was inside the shop that the 1st defendant handed a plastic bag containing the “Ice”, the subject matter of Charge 2, to PW1.

15.  On 1 January 2010, the 1st defendant again telephoned PW1, telling him that her godmother had “Ice” for sale. PW1 asked for the price. D1 told him it was $1,100 and PW1 agreed to the price.

16.  At 4.30 pm on 4 January 2010, PW1 met the 1st defendant at the car park of Waldorf Garden in Tuen Mun and gave $1,100 to D1.

17.  At 4.55 pm that day, the 1st defendant gave PW1 a plastic bag containing the “Ice”, the subject matter of Charge 3, outside the ground floor of Common Bond Shopping Centre at No. 7, Tsing Chui Path in Tuen Mun.

18.  On 11 January 2010, when PW1 and the 1st defendant were chatting in Tuen Mun, the 1st defendant offered to sell ketamine to PW1. PW1 asked the cost and the 1st defendant told him it would cost $800 per ounce. PW1 accepted this price.

19.  At 5 pm on 12 January 2010, i.e., the following day, the 1st defendant rang PW1 and told him the drugs were available. She asked him to meet her at the car park at Waldorf Garden. When they met, PW1 paid the 1st defendant $800 and received from her the ketamine, the subject matter of the 4th charge.

20.  On 20 January 2010, the 1st defendant met PW1 and told him to ring up the 2nd defendant as the 2nd defendant had drugs for sale. PW1 then telephoned the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant asked him if he wanted to purchase “Ice” from her. PW1 replied in the affirmative and asked the 2nd defendant the price. She told him it would cost $1,450. PW1 accepted this price.

21.  At 6.30 pm on 21 January 2010, PW1 met the 2nd defendant at the rear staircase of the 1st floor of Dor Bao Building at No. 9, Tsing Chui Path in Tuen Mun. PW1 gave her the $1,450 in cash. The 2nd defendant left and later that evening she met him and handed to him a plastic bag containing the “Ice”, the subject matter of Charge 5.

22.  On 25 January 2010, the 1st defendant telephoned PW1 and asked him if he wanted to buy ketamine from her. He asked her the price. She told him it was $820, which he accepted.

23.  At 4.30 pm the same day, PW1 met D1, D3 and another girl he did not know at the Tuen Mun Fu Tai Estate. The 1st defendant introduced the 3rd defendant and the other girl to PW1. She asked PW1 to pay the money to the 3rd defendant, and PW1 handed over the $820 to her. D1 and D3 then left.

24.  At 6.18 pm the same day, PW1 met the 3rd defendant and the unknown girl outside the toilet near Shop No. 101 of the Fu Tai Shopping Centre at No. 9, Tuen Kwai Road in Tuen Mun. The 3rd defendant gave a plastic bag containing the ketamine, the subject matter of Charge 6, to PW1. PW1 was still owed two packets of ketamine.

25.  On 4 February 2010, the 1st defendant telephoned PW1 and told him to go to Long Ping Estate to receive the balance ketamine, and at 8.20 pm, PW1 met the 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant outside Shop LOP23 at Long Ping MTR Station Exit A-B at Ping Yee Road in Yuen Long. The 3rd defendant handed to PW1 a plastic bag containing the ketamine, the subject matter of Charge 8.

26.  On 1 February 2010, the 2nd defendant telephoned PW1 and asked him if he wanted to buy any “Ice”. He replied that he did and asked her the price. She told him it would cost him $1,200 and PW1 accepted this price.

27.  At 1 pm on 2 February 2010, i.e., the following day, PW1 met the 2nd defendant at the rear staircase at the 11th floor of Dor Bao Building at No. 9, Tsing Chui Path in Tuen Mun. The 2nd defendant gave PW1 a plastic bag containing the “Ice”, the subject matter of Charge 7.

28.  On 2 March 2010, the 2nd defendant again telephoned PW1 and asked him if he wanted to buy drugs from her. He replied in the affirmative. PW1 asked the 2nd defendant the cost and she told him it would cost him $2,500 for a half portion of “Ice”. PW1 accepted this offer.

29.  At about 12.25 pm on 3 March 2010, namely the following day, PW1 met the 2nd defendant at Flat A on the 15th floor of Dor Bao Building at No. 9, Tsing Chui Path, Tuen Mun, where the 2nd defendant gave to him a plastic bag containing the “Ice”, the subject matter of Charge 9, whilst PW1 paid her $2,500. The 2nd defendant told PW1 that the “Ice” had cost her $2,200.

30.  On 23 March 2010, the 2nd defendant again telephoned PW1 and asked him if he wished to buy drugs. He replied in the affirmative and asked her for the price. The 2nd defendant told him it would cost him $900 for two portions. PW1 accepted this price.

31.  At 8.40 am the following day, 24 March 2010, PW1 met the 2nd defendant outside Flat A on the 15th floor of Dor Bao Building at Tsing Chui Path, Tuen Mun. PW1 gave the 2nd defendant $900 cash, whilst the 2nd defendant handed to PW1 a plastic bag containing the “Ice”, the subject matter of Charge 10.

32.  All the defendants were subsequently arrested.

33.  Under caution, the 1st and 2nd defendant admitted the offences, whilst the 3rd defendant denied the offences.

34.  The 1st defendant is now aged 18. She has a previous conviction for theft in 2008, when she was put on probation for 12 months. D1 was 17 at the time of the present offences.

35.  The 2nd defendant is now aged 32 years. She has three previous convictions, all for theft. Her last theft conviction was on 30 November 2009, when she was placed on probation for a period of 12 months. By her present conviction, she is in breach of that probation order.

36.  The 3rd defendant is now aged 16 years. She has a clear record.

37.  After hearing counsel in mitigation on the last hearing before me on 16 August 2010, I adjourned the matter until yesterday for sentence, calling for background and training centre reports for the 1st and 3rd defendant, and a background report in respect of the 2nd defendant.

38.  Certain matters arose yesterday, and as a result, the sentence was adjourned until today.

39.  The reports are now before me, as well as a psychiatric report dated 9 November 2009 in respect of the 2nd defendant.

40.  I also have before me letters written by the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant, as well as by their family members and the 3rd defendant’s employer.

41.  In relation to the 1st defendant, I was told in mitigation that she came to know PW1 in a karaoke, and it was he who approached her and asked her if she knew anyone who could supply him with dangerous drugs that he could sell at a profit, and, out of a desire to help PW1 and out of naivety, she acted as a middleman to put him in touch with the 2nd defendant who was the godmother of her younger sister, and it was the 2nd defendant who supplied him with the “Ice”.

42.  The 2nd defendant had first introduced the 1st defendant to “Ice” when the 1st defendant was only 13, and the 1st defendant would take “Ice” occasionally.

43.  The 2nd defendant was much older than the 1st defendant, and therefore the prime mover and supplier of the dangerous drugs, and it was submitted that the 1st defendant did not receive any reward.

44.  Clearly, counsel for the 1st defendant in mitigation tried to minimise the role of the 1st defendant.

45.  When counsel for the 1st defendant was told by the court that her mitigation was inconsistent with the facts admitted by the 1st defendant in court, she informed the court that she would not take that line of mitigation further.

46.  However, the matter was revisited again yesterday and the matter had to be adjourned until this afternoon, and I was told at the outset of today’s proceedings that the 1st defendant unequivocally admitted the Summary of Facts and would not pursue this line.

47.  The facts admitted by the 1st defendant in court disclose that she was in the same school as PW1. It was the 1st defendant who had told PW1 that her godmother had drugs for sale and asked whether he wanted any, but her role was not just to put PW1 in touch with D2. She telephoned him on more than one occasion to ask him if he wanted to buy dangerous drugs. She told him the price. She delivered the drugs to him and collected the money from him.

48.  The 1st defendant’s parents are divorced. She lives with her mother and three younger siblings, all of whom are students, in a public housing unit. The family receives CSSA.

49.  The 1st defendant left school in March of 2010. She tried to find a job but was unsuccessful.

50.  The 1st defendant was born in China and came to Hong Kong with her mother in 1999 for family reunion with her father. Her other siblings are born in Hong Kong.

51.  The 1st defendant was looked after by her maternal grandmother, as her parents both worked. Her parents divorced in 2005. The mother quit her job to care for the family. With working parents and being raised in a broken family, the 1st defendant received ineffective parental control and supervision.

52.  Her academic performance was not satisfactory. After being promoted to Form 2, she mingled with undesirable peers and lost interest in her studies. Her conduct in school went from good to unsatisfactory. She was required to repeat Form 4, and finally quit school in March of this year.

53.  The 1st defendant came to know the 2nd defendant, who was the mother of her sister’s classmate. They had a close relationship, and D1 called the 2nd defendant her godmother.

54.  The 1st defendant had a previous conviction for theft, for which she was placed on probation. She managed to complete the probation order satisfactorily.

55.  She admitted to the interviewing probation officer that she had taken ketamine three times and “Ice” about six times since 2007.

56.  In the training centre report, she told the interviewing officer that the drugs were provided to her by the 2nd defendant for free.

57.  She claimed to the probation officer in the background report that she had received no reward and merely delivered the drugs to PW1.

58.  However, in the training centre report, the 1st defendant told the interviewing officer that she was provided with free dangerous drugs as a reward for trafficking the dangerous drugs.

59.  She said she had gained insight on the detrimental effects of dangerous drugs and the seriousness of her offences. She would quit taking dangerous drugs and cut off her links with her undesirable friends, including the 2nd defendant, and lead a law-abiding life.

60.  Her mother told the probation officer that the 1st defendant loved to mingle with the 2nd defendant and would not listen to her advice and their relationship was thus tense. Since the 1st defendant’s detention, the family has been very supportive of her and sought leniency on behalf of the 1st defendant.

61.  Her behaviour whilst being remanded at the Lai King Correctional Institution after her arrest for the present offences cannot be described as good. According to the training centre report, she had a heated argument with another inmate and provoked the other party to fight with her. She was punished for this. Although she has stayed out of trouble since, she remains playful and impolite towards the staff at the Lai King Correctional Institution.

62.  The interviewing officer in the training centre report said that the 1st defendant was prepared for a custodial sentence and hoped that she would not be admitted to the training centre, as she believed a sentence of imprisonment would be of a shorter duration.

63.  The interviewing officer opined that the 1st defendant’s attitude was insincere and her rehabilitation plans superficial, and doubted the 1st defendant’s determination to start anew. The 1st defendant was considered suitable for detention in a training centre.

64.  In relation to the 2nd defendant, I was told in mitigation that the 2nd defendant was the godmother of the 1st defendant’s younger sister, and that it was the 1st defendant who introduced the drug supplier to the 2nd defendant, and it was not the 2nd defendant who had led the 1st defendant astray.

65.  The background report on the 2nd defendant disclosed that she has a 14-year-old daughter studying in Form 4. The 2nd defendant was separated from her current husband and lived with her daughter in rented premises in Tuen Mun.

66.  She had worked as a waitress in restaurants since she started working when she was 16. Because of a relapse in her depressive illness, she quit full-time work in 2005. She resumed working in 2007, but quit again in February of 2009 for medical reasons.

67.  Since her separation from her husband in September of 2009, she received financial support from him as well as social security payments.

68.  The 2nd defendant was brought up by her mother. Her parents were divorced.

69.  She dropped out of school when she was in 3rd Form. She cohabited with her colleague soon after she started working and they registered their marriage, but separated before the birth of their daughter in 1995.

70.  The 2nd defendant suffered from postnatal depression and sought private psychiatric treatment, and her child was cared for by her maiden family while she worked.

71.  She remarried in 2002, but this relationship was fraught with problems. She suspected he was having extramarital affairs.

72.  She started to receive treatment for chronic depression in 2003 at the Tuen Mun Mental Health Centre.

73.  Her husband was declared bankrupt in 2005 and the family received CSSA.

74.  The 2nd defendant attempted suicide in 2007, claiming excessive suffering from pain and helplessness towards her marital and financial problems.

75.  In September of 2009, she applied for legal aid to institute divorce proceedings against her husband, and applied for CSSA for herself and her daughter.

76.  She was put on probation on 30 November 2009 for an offence of theft. Her supervising probation officer disclosed to the interviewing officer that she was satisfied with her compliance with the probation order.

77.  The 2nd defendant told the interviewing officer that she was nice to her daughter’s schoolmates, including the 1st defendant’s two younger sisters and the 1st defendant. They came from a problematic family and often stayed over with her, and were so grateful for her care of them that they saw her as their sworn mother.

78.  She said that she had been so helpless and concerned about the welfare of her daughter that she eventually sought easy money to tide her over her finances when her husband deserted them.

79.  Since her remand, her husband has returned home and he takes care of the daughter.

80.  The daughter told the interviewing officer that the 2nd defendant had been a good mother to her, who cared about her schooling and her schoolmates, including the 1st defendant.

81.  The psychiatric report on the 2nd defendant was one prepared by Dr Lui Sai-yu on 9 November 2009, in respect of the theft case for which she was placed on probation on 30 November 2009.

82.  She diagnosed the 2nd defendant to be suffering from recurrent depressive disorder, current episode moderate without somatic symptoms, and opined that the 2nd defendant had poor and maladaptive stress coping to her ongoing and persistent psychosocial stress, i.e., marital discord, financial difficulties, childcare problem and limited social support, and recommended she continue to receive outpatient psychiatric service.

83.  It is unclear whether the 2nd defendant has continued to see Dr Lui since her remand and custody after her arrest, but the interviewing probation officer in the background report said that Dr Lui assessed that the 2nd defendant should not be capable to be the organiser of the drug trafficking, given her chronic depressed mood. But, of course, I have not been provided with any up-to-date psychiatric report.

84.  In mitigation yesterday, counsel for the 2nd defendant sought to submit that the 2nd defendant had been willing to lead police to the address where she obtained the drugs, and had told the police officer who interviewed her of her willingness, although the police did not pursue this.

85.  When more details were sought about the 2nd defendant’s offer made to the police officer, counsel for the 2nd defendant indicated that the 2nd defendant would not pursue this in mitigation.

86.  In relation to the 3rd defendant, she is aged 16. Both her parents, as well as other family members, are in court today.

87.  Counsel for the 3rd defendant submitted that the 3rd defendant acted under the instruction of the 1st defendant and, in the 1st defendant’s presence, handed the ketamine over to PW1. She was simply the carrier/messenger who handed the drugs over.

88.  Counsel also submitted that although there were two charges she had pleaded guilty to, it was in fact a single transaction. The drugs in Charge 8 were really the balance of the drugs purchased in respect of Charge 6.

89.  The 3rd defendant has a clear record.

90.  She lives with her parents and two siblings. Her father was unemployed, as was her 20-year-old elder brother. Her younger brother was a Primary 4 student. Her mother was a housewife and the family relies on CSSA. They live in a public housing unit.

91.  She had studied up to Form 3 and then started to work. Her academic performance was unsatisfactory and in her final term at school, her conduct was graded as unsatisfactory, and she would ignore her teachers’ advice and was remarked to be “cunning, disrespectful and wilful”.

92.  Her parents disclosed that she had been employed since leaving school and sought leniency on her behalf.

93.  The 3rd defendant told the interviewing probation officer that the 1st defendant was her schoolmate from the 2nd Form and lived in the same neighbourhood.

94.  The 1st defendant had introduced the 2nd defendant to her, whom she had met a few times. She received no monetary reward for what she did, but did so at the 1st defendant’s request, as the 1st defendant had promised to introduce her to a better job.

95.  In the training centre report, the 3rd defendant told the interviewing officer there that she was given $820 as a reward after the first occasion, when she handed the dangerous drugs to the undercover police officer.

96.  The 3rd defendant was working in a bakery shop at the time of her arrest, earning $100 a day.

97.  In the training centre report, the interviewing officer said the 3rd defendant claimed to have learnt a bitter lesson whilst being remanded, and begged for leniency.

98.  The 3rd defendant was considered suitable for detention in a training centre.

99.  Counsel for the prosecution has helpfully prepared a schedule, setting out the charges, the defendants involved in each charge, the date of the offences, and the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved.

100.  The 1st defendant is involved in six charges, one jointly with the 2nd defendant and two jointly with the 3rd defendant, involving a total of 1 gramme of “Ice” and 8.2 grammes of ketamine.

101.  The 2nd defendant is involved in five charges, one of which is jointly with the 1st defendant, and involves a total of 5.21 grammes of “Ice”.

102.  The 3rd defendant is involved in two charges, both jointly with the 1st defendant, and involving 3.99 grammes of ketamine.

103.  According to the guidelines in The Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, the tariff for a conviction after trial of trafficking in 1 to 10 grammes of ketamine is 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment.

104.  For up to 10 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride, namely “Ice”, the starting point is 3 to 7 years imprisonment after trial, pursuant to The Attorney-General v Ching Kwok Hung, CAAR15/1990.

105.  PW1 was deployed as an undercover police officer and enrolled as a Form 4 student in the school that the 1st defendant was also studying at.

106.  I do view the supply of dangerous drugs to school students to be extremely serious. The availability of dangerous drugs and their supply to school students is a growing problem and one that causes grave concern in the community.

107.  Here, two types of dangerous drugs were involved, methamphetamine hydrochloride, namely “Ice”, and ketamine.

108.  Ketamine has been shown to be a prevalent drug in Hong Kong, and its harm to individuals and the community as a whole is tremendous. It is very commonly trafficked in Hong Kong and particularly amongst young people.

109.  This has become such a problem that last year the Court of Appeal had to increase the sentences to increase the deterrent effect on people trafficking in ketamine.

110.  I deal firstly with the 2nd defendant.

111.  An immediate custodial sentence is, in my view, inevitable. The 2nd defendant is not a first-time offender, although these are her first offences involving dangerous drugs.

112.  By her conviction for these offences, she is in breach of a probation order made on 30 November 2009 for the offences of theft. She would have been on bail pending the availability of the probation officer’s report when the offence in Count 1 was committed on or about 28 November 2009. The subsequent offences - Counts 5, 7, 9 and 10 - were committed soon after the making of the probation order. The offences were committed over a period of about 4 months.

113.  She was the godmother of the 1st defendant’s younger sister, and clearly the 1st defendant was close to her.

114.  In my view, the greatest mitigation of weight before me on her behalf are her pleas of guilty. There is little else of weight before me. That she suffered from depression, for which she was receiving outpatient treatment, is not, in my view, a matter to which great weight can be attached.

115.  On the 1st count, I take as a starting point 3 years’ imprisonment, discount this by one-third to reflect her plea, and sentence her to 2 years’ imprisonment.

116.  On Charge 5, I take as a starting point 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, discount this by one-third to reflect her plea, and sentence her to 2½ years’ imprisonment.

117.  On Charge 7, I take as a starting point 4 years’ imprisonment, discount this by one-third to reflect her plea of guilty, and sentence her to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

118.  On Charge 9, I take as a starting point 4½ years’ imprisonment, discount this by one-third to reflect her plea, and sentence her to 3 years’ imprisonment.

119.  On Charge 10, I take as a starting point 3½ years, discount this by one-third to reflect her plea, and sentence her to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

120.  These are separate and distinct offences committed over a period of time and warrant consecutive sentences, but I do take into account totality.

121.  I shall order that the sentences on Charges 1, 5, 7 and 10 be concurrent, and 2 years of the sentence in Count 9 be concurrent with this, and 1 year on the sentence of

Count 9 be consecutive, so the total would be 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for the 2nd defendant.

122.  The 1st defendant is now aged 18 while the 3rd defendant is aged 16.

123.  Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221, provides that no court shall sentence a person of or over 16 years and under 21 years of age to imprisonment, unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with such person is appropriate. This provision, however, does not apply to the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, which is an excepted offence.

124.  I nevertheless called for a training centre report in respect of both the 1st and the 3rd defendants to provide me with background information of these defendants.

125.  In passing sentence on the 3rd defendant, I have carefully considered everything said by counsel on her behalf, as well as the letters written by the 3rd defendant and on her behalf asking for leniency.

126.  I take into account that she is still very young and of clear record.

127.  I am asked to sentence her to detention in a training centre.

128.  The Appeal Courts have made clear that, save in very rare cases, a training centre order should not be imposed for trafficking in substantial quantities of dangerous drugs, the authority being The Secretary for Justice v Ko Fei Tat [2002] 4 HKC 59.

129.  The 3rd defendant’s family members are in court today and they all show great concern for her. Although the reports disclose that the 3rd defendant’s relationship with her parents in the past has not been of the best, she has gained insight during her current remand, and she is prepared to shoulder the legal consequences for what she has done.

130.  She has also verbalised her remorse to the interviewing officers, and it is also reflected by her pleas.

131.  I have considered the classical principles of sentencing and balance amongst the need for rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence and prevention. Whilst rehabilitation for a young offender is always an important consideration, the interest of the community as a whole must be given due regard.

132.  Having considered the whole circumstances in respect of the 3rd defendant carefully, bearing in mind her young age and everything said on her behalf, and the circumstances of the two offences that she has admitted as they relate to her, including her role and the quantity and nature of the dangerous drugs concerned, and taking into consideration what training centre would offer to young offenders such as her, in my view, the appropriate sentence for the 3rd defendant would be to make a training centre order.

133.  Therefore, in respect of Charges 6 and 8, the 3rd defendant is sentenced to a term of detention in the training centre, to be concurrent.

134.  Insofar as the 1st defendant is concerned, she is now 18. She was 17 at the time of the offences. She would have been fully aware of the gravity of what she was doing and the risk that would be involved if she was apprehended.

135.  Although young, she approached the undercover police officer to ask him if he wanted to buy dangerous drugs. She put him in touch with the 2nd defendant to obtain dangerous drugs. She also sold dangerous drugs to him on more than one occasion, informing him of the price, obtaining payment from him, and delivering the dangerous drugs to him or arranging for their delivery to him.

136.  She has admitted to six counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs to a fellow student over a period of several months.

137.  Having considered the whole circumstances in respect of the 1st defendant, bearing in mind that she is now 18, and everything said on her behalf, and taking into consideration what training centre could offer to young offenders such as the 1st defendant, in my judgment, the interests of the community prevails and the only appropriate sentence to be imposed on her is an imprisonment term.

138.  On Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4, on each charge I take as a starting point 3 years’ imprisonment, discount this by one-third to reflect her plea, and sentence her to 2 years’ imprisonment.

139.  On Charge 6, I take as a starting point 2½ years’ imprisonment, discount this by one-third to reflect her plea, and sentence her to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.

140.  On Charge 8, I take as a starting point 2 years’ imprisonment, discount it by one-third to reflect her plea, and sentence her to 16 months’ imprisonment.

141.  These are all separate and distinct offences, warranting consecutive sentences, but I do take into account totality.

142.  I shall order that the sentences in Charges 1, 2, 3, 4 be concurrent and that on Charges 6 and 8 be concurrent, but consecutive to the sentences on Charges 1 to 4, so that will be a total of 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.