CRIMINAL CASE NO. 470 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134.
The defendant was intercepted by the police on the pavement outside the building she resided at. She was found to be holding three packets of drugs in her hand. She admitted that she helped someone to deliver the K-chai from China to a person in Hong Kong and was promised $1,000 as remuneration.
On analysis the drugs were found to be 149.33 grammes of a powder containing 128.96 grammes of ketamine. The retail value was in the region of $16,000-odd.
By way of mitigation I am told that the defendant is aged 42, her husband died in 1995. She has an 18-year-old daughter in secondary and a 22-year-old son, who had completed Year 1 in university studies but because of financial constraints he had to stop studying. She has aged parents and the father had just been discharged from hospital after an 18 year stay there.
It is said that she committed the present offence because of financial difficulty and she wished to earn quick money to ease the stringent circumstances.
In sentencing the defendant I have taken into account the nature of the offence, the kind of drugs involved and the sentencing tariff as well as mitigation advanced by counsel and those contained in the mitigation letters. I also bear in mind her clear record.
However, when it comes to sentencing in trafficking offences, unblemished record and family circumstances play little or no part and do not constitute any extraneous circumstances which call for discounts attracted by a guilty plea.
For trafficking in ketamine weighing between 50 to 300 grammes, a starting point of 6 to 9 years is to be adopted. Abdallah’s case reiterated that international factor is an aggravating feature.
Taking into account the cross-border factor in the present case and the amount of drugs involved, I adopt a starting point of 7½ years. The defendant fought the voir dire and only changed her plea after her confessions were ruled admissible. She is not entitled to the one-third discount which she would otherwise be entitled to should the guilty plea be a timely one.
I shall give her a quarter discount and sentence her to a round up of 67 months’ imprisonment - 5 years and 7 months.