|
DCCC 273/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 273OF 2013
------------------------------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
LEE Ka-man |
(1st Defendant) |
| |
TSE Kin-fai |
(2nd Defendant) |
------------------------------------------
| Date: |
29 May 2013 at 10:49 am |
| Present: |
Mr Peter TSE, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Ms SIM Siow Eng Suzanne, instructed by M/s Wong & Co assignedby DLA for the 1st defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) & (2) Trafficking in a dangerous drug（販運危險藥物） |
------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons for Sentence relating to 1st Defendant
------------------------------------------------------------
Charges and facts
1. The 2nd defendant (“D2”) had pleaded guilty and sentenced before another court. The 1st defendant (“D1”) now pleads guilty to 2 charges of trafficking.
2. At about 8 pm on 3 January 2013, the police in an anti-narcotics operation found D2 lingering in a suspicious manner outside a shop in Gala Place, 56 Dundas Street, Mong Kok. D2 then approached D1 in the vicinity and walked with D1 to a staircase near another shop in Gala Place. D1 handed over an item (later found to be a plastic bag containing 2.44 g of a solid containing 1.98 g of ketamine) to D2. In return D2 handed over an item (later found to be $350 cash) to D1. After arrest and caution, D1 said the ketamine was for her own consumption. These constituted the 1st charge of trafficking, ie by actual trafficking.
3. The police searched D1’s bag and found 9 plastic bags containing a total of 44.20 g of a solid containing 33.24 g of ketamine. These constituted the 2nd charge of trafficking, ie by possession for the purpose of trafficking.
4. The estimated street value of all the drugs was over $5,600.
Personal background and mitigation
5. D1 is 27 years of age, of F. 3 education level. She worked as a saleslady before arrest. She lives with her mother. Her father had gone missing for many years. She does not earn much but gives out quite a substantial portion in financial support of her mother. In order to raise money for her mother’s urgent operation in a private hospital to repair a punctured retina, she turned to commit the present offences.
6. She had 1 previous record for possession of dangerous drug in 2002. I am told that after a period of abstinence she had reverted to the drug habit since 2008. She is not a drug-dependent as she can live with no ketamine for a few days.
7. In their mitigating letters, her 2 step-sisters described her as a person not of major vice and they beg for leniency.
Sentencing guidelines
8. As laid down in HKSAR v Hii Siew Cheng [2007] 1 HKLRD 1, for up to 10 g of ketamine, the sentence shall be 2 – 4 years, 10 – 50 g, 4 – 6 years. The 1st charge involved 1.98 g of ketamine whereas the 2nd charge involved 33.24 g of ketamine.
Sentencing this defendant
9. For the 1st charge, I take 2 ½ years (ie 30 months) as the starting point. I give one-third discount for the plea of guilty. The sentence is 20 months.
10. For the 2nd charge, I take 5 years (ie 60 months) as the starting point. I give one-third discount for the plea of guilty. The sentence is 40 months.
11. As the 2 charges featured closely related circumstances, I order the sentences to be concurrent. D1’s overall sentence is 3 years 4 months (ie 40 months).
|