CRIMINAL CASE NO. 407 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 drug was 0.22 kilogrammes of a powder containing 0.18 kilogrammes of ketamine.
The facts, which were admitted by the defendant, show that on 17 May 2011, Customs officers observed a woman and a man leaving premises in a building in Yau Ma Tei. The woman carried a rolled-up plastic bag in her hand. The couple were intercepted by Customs officers, and the woman, later known as the defendant, threw the bag on the ground.
Inside the bag were 32 plastic bags, 30 of which had adhesive tape on them. The bags contained the drugs the subject of this charge.
The defendant was taken back to the building she had left, and using keys found on her person, Customs officers entered a flat on the 2nd floor. Inside the room, on a table,were a plastic box, two spoons which contained traces of dangerous drugs, an electronic scale, ziploc bags, scissors and adhesive address labels.
Under caution, when shown the packet of drugs she threw to the ground, the defendant admitted that the stuff was hers, that it had been discarded by her, and that it had nothing to do with the boy.
Analysis by the Government Chemist confirmed the quantity and nature of the drug as set out in the particulars of the charge. A small quantity of powder from the plastic box and the spoons, 0.10 grammes in total, was not included in the total quantity of powder.
The premises had been rented by the defendant from 3 April 2011.
The estimated retail value of the drugs was $24,871.30.
The defendant does have a criminal record, starting in 2001. In 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2010, she was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs. There are no previous offences of trafficking.
In mitigation, I was told that the defendant is now aged 27 years. She came from a broken family and was brought up by her mother. She is a drug addict and had taken drugs for around 10 years at the time of her arrest. Counsel advised that the reason for her taking drugs was because she was sexually assaulted and abused in the year 2000. She became isolated, lost confidence in others, including males, and used drugs to escape reality.
She committed the present offence in part because she wanted to earn quick money to finance her studies in what is termed the Yi Jin Education Programme and to repay part of a grant or loan that she borrowed from the government in 2009. The defendant has taken steps to acquire an education over the years. In 2007 she completed a Yi Jin Programme which comprised subjects including counselling, psychology and social service practice. She took part in public examinations run by the City and Guilds; Chinese spreadsheet processing, and also Chinese word processing.
Letters were produced confirming that she had worked as a programme assistant in the Neighbourhood Advice Action Council and the Fu Hong Society in 2007 and 2008. Although she enjoyed those jobs, she quit because the salary was too low to cover her tuition fees for the Yi Jin Programme.
Certificates confirming her exam successes have been produced. So too has a letter from her mother setting out the fact that her daughter is determined to improve herself and turn over a new leaf. Her mother seeks leniency on sentence. There is a long letter from the defendant herself setting out her reasons for becoming involved in drugs in the first place. She indicates that she understands that education is important and that was the reason she was trying to complete her education. She asks for leniency and says that she is determined to change her life while she is in prison.
There is also a letter produced from the social worker of the Caritas Lok Heep Club, Miss Lai Siu-mei, Sandra, confirming that the defendant had received counselling service since 2009. She confirms that Miss Leung’s mother supports her and agrees that she has shown improvement since her arrest.
The sentencing guidelines for ketamine are set out in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. This comes within the range of 50 to 300 grammes, 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.
I take into account the cogent mitigation available to the defendant, which is her plea of guilty, and note too the unusual effort that she has made to acquire an education.
Bearing those matters in mind, I take a starting point of 6 years for this offence, and sentence her to 4 years’ imprisonment.