HKSAR v. CHAN MAN YEE

HCCC 479/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 479 OF 2015

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 107 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 105.4 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The facts show that on 13 May 2015, police officers went, with a search warrant, to a room in Apliu Street, and inside the room was the defendant and a man. A search of the defendant’s handbag revealed six resealable plastic bags containing what the police officers thought were suspected dangerous drugs. Subsequent chemist analysis proved the suspicion right and these were the drugs which is the subject matter of the charge.

The retail street value of this quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride is about HK$42,158.

Upon being cautioned, the defendant admitted that she was to supply this ‘Ice’ to customers and that she earned $500.

The defendant is aged 52 at the time of her arrest and has previous convictions which are drug-related. She has six previous convictions and three were for possession of dangerous drugs and one for trafficking in dangerous drugs. For the trafficking in dangerous drugs, she was sentenced in 2001 to 5 years and 4 months. Her last conviction was in July 2015, for possession of dangerous drugs, for which she was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.

Mr Yu, in mitigation on her behalf, has set out in great detail the sad background of the defendant. In brief, she came from a very dysfunctional family, full of domestic violence and trauma as she was growing up. It was hardly surprising that she left school when she was in Form 2.

At the age of 18, she had a son with her then boyfriend. Unfortunately, the boyfriend’s parents took the son away and in the trauma of that moment, she then tried heroin and according to Mr Yu, that explains her first drug record in 1988. At the age of 30, she had two more sons with another boyfriend but, unfortunately, she appears to be estranged from those two sons as well.

She was first known to the Mental Health Services in 2003. It has been, after that, a sad history of being in and out of prison, in and out of psychiatric centres and a sad history of mental illness. Eventually, she started training as an assistant in an elderly home. She succeeded and completed her training and was assigned to work at an elderly home in Tuen Mun, but because of her workload, her mental problem reappeared.

She had been, at the time of her arrest, unemployed and receiving CSSA. She began buying drugs and she was told that if she delivered drugs, she could earn $500 to repay her debt to the drug supplier. I agree with Mr Yu that it is a run-of-the-mill, typical drug case where a drug abuser is exploited by the drug dealer to participate in trafficking of the drugs.

Now, this case was adjourned for quite a few months in order for certain investigation to proceed in order to assist the court with sentence. Unfortunately, as of this moment, there has been no positive results. Perhaps, as Mr Raffell pointed out, it is due to the lapse of time between the arrest and the provision of the material for investigation.

As both counsel, very wisely, have concluded, we cannot keep adjourning this case for sentence so both of them agree that today I should sentence. So as of this moment, the only real mitigation in this case is that the defendant pleaded guilty. The defendant is aged 52 and despite her sad background, should be well aware, after all these years, about the court taking a very serious view of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

The Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for sentencing in methamphetamine hydrochloride in the case of Tam Yi Chun in 2014, that for trafficking in between 70 to 300 grammes, that would merit a guideline starting point sentence of 11 to 15 years’ imprisonment.

So in this case, the amount in this case being 105.4 grammes, would merit a starting point sentence of between 11 to 12 years’ imprisonment. I will take a starting point sentence of 11½ years.

In view of what Mr Raffell has said just now about the information, since there is no positive result, no great deduction in sentence can be made.

So I will take a starting point of 11½ years and giving the defendant the full one-third off for her plea, she is sentenced to 7 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.