The defendant has pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 2.43 kilogrammes of a powder containing 1.86 kilogrammes of ketamine. She has been committed to this court for sentencing.
The facts show that on 21 March this year, she was seen by police officers carrying a red carrier bag and taking -- and boarded a train from Fanling Town Centre to Tai Po. When she was stopped, inside the carrier bag was found the drugs, the subject matter of the charge.
Under caution she admitted that she knew that the drugs were dangerous drugs and that she was doing it in order to earn money to pay off her debts and this was the first time that she did such a thing. The estimated retail value of the drugs is in the region of HK$286,740.
The defendant is a young girl aged 17. She has a clear record. In mitigation, Mr Chan had submitted that the defendant lives with her father, who is a hard-working civil servant and the defendant herself quit school after Form 3, when she had no interest in studying any longer. She went to work at McDonalds for a year but she quit after one year.
However, her father still gave her, as pocket money, $500 a week. So it would appear that the defendant was much better off than a lot of young people her age, with a caring father who worked hard and still gave her pocket money, despite the fact that she had quit her job.
I am told by Mr Chan, on her behalf, that she was always interested in photography and wanted to buy a camera, costing about $20,000. And rightly, her father did not want to pay for that camera of $20,000, so she got herself into debt to pay, to buy the camera. But there was no urgency for her to earn money because she had merely to repay the debt in instalments. However, she committed this offence because it was easy money. I am told that she was expecting to be paid $2,000 for this delivery.
Now, these are the sort of teenagers that drug traffickers would look out for as easy prey to do their dirty work for them. And teenagers like the defendant will spend something like 10 years in prison in return for $2,000. Mr Chan, himself, says that the defendant did not think about the consequences of her action. It is not mitigation because just switching on the television you will see so many advertisements, run by the Government, warning teenagers about the consequences.
I would say that the defendant has led a privileged life, more privileged than other young people and was not willing to work hard to earn her money, and this is the consequence.
Now, the Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines for trafficking in ketamine. In the case of Hii Siew Cheng[1], it was recommended that for trafficking over 1,000 grammes of ketamine, the sentence should be 14 years upwards.
And this court is grateful to Mr Power for drawing its attention to the two latest cases in relation to trafficking in large quantities of ketamine, particularly the latest one which is HKSAR v Chow Yau-ching[2], where the Court of Appeal had referred to an earlier case of Sin Chung Kin[3] and adopted the analysis in that case in respect of trafficking in large quantities of ketamine.
At paragraph 15, in Chow Yau-ching’s case, the Court of Appeal said that the Sin Chung Kin did not revise the sentencing guidelines. It was only because of the lack of further elaboration in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng on the appropriate starting point for trafficking in over 1,000 grammes of ketamine, that the Court of Appeal, having considered the rates of enhancement of starting points for trafficking in large quantities of other dangerous drugs such as heroin and “ice” made the observation that the appropriate starting points for trafficking in 2,000 and 3,000 grammes of ketamine should respectively be no less than 18 years and 20 years.
The amount of drugs in this case is not insubstantial, it is 1.86 kilogrammes. So the starting point would be in the region of 15 to 16 years’ imprisonment. However, I do take into account that this will be the first time that this defendant will hear the clang of the prison gate and the fact is that the court had to consider, in sentencing, the principle to take into consideration for a first time offender, the background.
So having considered everything I will adopt a lenient starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment. And giving the defendant one-third off for her plea, that will reduce the sentence to 9 years and 4 months.
And as Mr Chan observed, the defendant will spend most of her best days in prison, for $2,000.