HKSAR v. WANG YAN

DCCC 742/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 742 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant has been convicted on her own plea of guilty of two offences, one of theft, and one of possession of a dangerous drug.

2. The possession of a dangerous drug involved the possession of what was in fact 25.23 grammes of narcotic content of ketamine.  The facts were agreed by the defendant and she was convicted accordingly.  The offences were committed on 26 December last year.  As the result of anti‑crime patrol, the defendant was arrested, searched, and the drugs were found on her in her left right front chest pocket, found in two transparent resealable bags.

3. She admitted at that stage the drugs were for her own consumption.

4. Certain items were found later after a body search.  She had found those items on a taxi and she had taken them, and those were an Octopus card, a bank card and some currency of $58, and that constitutes the facts of the theft charge.

5. In a record of interview she said the ketamine was for her own consumption.  She had bought it for $2,100.  She consumed it three times a day.

6. The ketamine was valued at $3,976.80, the quantity being 21.22 grammes, so it is a fairly substantial quantity of the drug.

7. As I am required to do, I obtained a report from the drug addiction treatment centre on the defendant.  She is, of clear record.  She had college education in China and was unemployed at the time of her arrest.  She has had the habit of taking dangerous drugs for two years, and takes “K Chai” by snorting it as described.

8. The drug addiction treatment centre report sets out a fairly lengthy history of consumption of the drug.  She already has some medical problems as a result of her consumption of this drug.  She has been employed as a saleslady, nightclub PR, foot massage worker, massage worker, and a waitress.  She has been taking the drugs since late 2012 and sometimes lives in Shenzhen.

9. The conclusion of the report is that she is suitable for admission to a drug addiction treatment centre. 

10. The only considerations in this case really are the defendant’s long‑term addiction, the nature of that addiction, and also the quantity of drugs involved.  Of course, where one is in possession of a quantity of this size, there is the question of latent risk to be considered in sentencing, which would take a sentence, if there was a sentence of imprisonment, higher than the normal rate of 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment one would impose for possession of a dangerous drug.

11. I am required to look at sentencing this defendant in an overall approach.  I am specifically required before sentencing, by the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance to regard the contents of the drug addiction treatment centre report before I sentence her for this offence, and it is absolutely clear to me, on reading this report, that this defendant would benefit from this treatment, and this treatment could mean that she will be free of the drug; and if she is free of the drug, I am completely satisfied she will not reoffend, because the only reason for her to be brought into these courts is as the result of her addiction.  So if the addiction is dealt with, I am sure she will lead a life where she no longer commits criminal offences.

12. So as a result of those conclusions, what I am going to do on both the charges is make an order that the defendant be sent to a drug addiction treatment centre for treatment in that centre.  Obviously those orders run alongside one another.

13. I will order conviction be recorded in respect of both cases.