HKSAR v. YEUNG WING YEE

DCCC 619/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 619 OF 2015

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of “Possession of dangerous drugs”, contrary to section 8 (1) (a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. The narcotics concerned is 124 grammes of powder containing 87.8 grammes of ketamine.

Facts of the case

2.  This is a common stop-and-search case: At around 4:30 pm on 3 May 2015, the defendant was acting furtively near a shopping mall called Waldorf Avenue in Tuen Mun, who perhaps unsurprisingly aroused police attention.  Police officers then stopped her, conducted a bodily search and found 124 grammes of powder containing 87.8 grammes of ketamine underneath her shorts.  The defendant told the police that it was ketamine.  Upon arrest and under caution, she admitted that the ketamine was bought by her at HK$3,000, which was all for her self-consumption.   

Mitigation

3.  The sentencing of the defendant was adjourned until today pending the calling of a drug addiction treatment centre (“DATC”) report.  DATC is however not recommended so Mr Davies, counsel for the defendant, fairly concedes that custodial sentence is the only option available.  The only question is for how long.  He submits that the “latent risk”, if any, would be limited notwithstanding the fairly large quantity of drugs.  The defendant genuinely bought the drugs for her own use and she had no intention to share with others.  Mr Davies suggests a term of 12 – 18 months, with a slight upward adjustment for latent risk if necessary.

4.  Concerning the defendant’s background, Mr Davies adopts the relevant information as set out in the DATC report.  The defendant, who is now 38 years of age, came from an unfavourable background.  Her parents and stepfather were all habitual drug users.  She has five previous convictions, none of which relate to drugs.  She however had been to the DATC once in 1998 for possession of dangerous drugs, and on that occasion the conviction was not recorded.    

Sentence

5.  Mr Davies has said all that could possibly be said on behalf of the defendant.  Before sentencing her I have carefully considered all the circumstances of the case and the mitigating factors.

6.  In accordance with the Court of Final Appeal decision in HKSAR v Minney (2013) 16 HKCFAR 26, I have afforded Mr Davies a chance to address me on latent risk.  After hearing his submissions, I accept that the latent risk involved is at the lower end of the scale.  I remind myself that there is no “unproven trafficking” offence even if the quantity of ketamine involved is large, and that the defendant has been found not to be a drug abuser.  In the circumstances, I consider a starting point of 24 months as appropriate.  The defendant pleads guilty so she is entitled to the usual discount of one third.  Other than that there is no further reduction.

Conclusion

7.  I impose a sentence of 16 months on the defendant.