HKSAR v. HUI MAN HIM

DCCC 108/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 108 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Ms Hui, has pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The narcotic content of that drug is 15.90 grammes of ketamine. She has agreed the facts and I have convicted her.

2.  Those facts show the defendant was arrested on 11 November 2015 as part of an anti-dangerous drugs operation in Tsing Yi, New Territories.  In the afternoon she was stopped and searched and the bag that the defendant was carrying was searched.  Now within that was a piece of white tissue paper wrapped around two resealable plastic bags which contained the dangerous drugs.  After being cautioned, she immediately said that she was paid $800 "to take the ketamine.  Give me a chance".  She expanded upon that in a video-recorded interview taken that evening.  She needed money for medical expenses and the rental of her shop and a person called "Ah B" had offered her a job in delivering the ketamine.  She was going to be paid $800.  She knew that she was delivering ketamine and in fact she had been a user of the drug herself but had stopped using it in 2005. 

3.  It is agreed the value of the drug found was $3,287.50 and that she was in possession of the ketamine for the purpose of unlawful trafficking in it. 

4.  The defendant's antecedents show that she is aged 29 years old and is single.  She was educated to Secondary 5 level and prior to her arrest she was the owner of a boutique.  She has a discharge from custody and that can be seen from her criminal record. She has three appearances in court back in 2003 to 2005 and those convictions relate to her consumption of drugs in that period.  She was placed on probation for 12 months in 2003.  Following a conviction for breach of the Probation Order, she was sent to the Rehabilitation Centre and she was released from that institution in November of 2006.  It says in the antecedents, and probably verified by her criminal record, that she has not been a consumer of drugs since her discharge from the Rehabilitation Centre.

5.  The defendant puts forward some mitigation. Although she is single she is in a relationship and I have read a letter from her boyfriend.  She is an only daughter and lives in her family house in Tsuen Wan.  Her convictions relate to when she was only 16 years old.  Of late, her life has become problematic in that her mother suffers from cancer.  The defendant had entered into the retail trade by starting a boutique in Tsuen Wan.  She had regular commitments in terms of rent and loan payments for that and she herself apparently suffered an injury whilst returning from China with goods that she had purchased.  She was hospitalised for some 16 days.  The result of this is that she had commitments also to pay rent and Chinese medicine costs and she was unable to cover her expenses.  As she said in the record of interview, she met this person called 'Ah B' who offered her the job as a courier of ketamine to her.  The reward was $800 but that was never paid as she was arrested before she received it.

6.  I have read letters of support from various members of her family and friends.  The defendant is obviously well thought of and is supportive of her parents and it is very unfortunate, and she acknowledges this herself in the letter that she wrote to the court, that she chose this method of trying to discharge her debts and meet her liabilities. 

7.  As far as the sentence is concerned, the trafficking in drugs such as ketamine is covered by guideline sentencing and it is common ground in this case that the sentencing guideline of the quantity of drugs in this case falls within is within the quantity of 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine which would lead to a starting point for sentence after trial for a person of clear record of between 4 to 6 years' imprisonment.  Simply looking at the quantity of drug, this would be at the lower end of the guideline.

8.  I am also entitled to take into account other factors and personal factors besides the simple quantity of drug such as her ability to rid herself of the drug addiction and to involve herself in industrious work for the last 10 years.  She is also studying in prison and this leads to some confidence that the defendant may be able to remake her life on her release from custody.

9.  Taking all these factors into account, what I shall do is take a starting point for sentence at the lowest end of the guideline for sentencing which is 4 years' imprisonment.  The only deduction I can make from that is to recognise her plea of guilty and admission of this offence at an early stage and that is a one-third discount from that figure. That leads to a sentence as computed in months of 32 months' imprisonment and that will be the sentence.