|
DCCC 316/2015
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 316 OF 2015
----------------------
----------------------
| Before: |
HH Judge Casewell |
| Date: |
8 June 2015 at 11.15 am |
| Present: |
Mr Frederick Chung, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Tang Siu-man Donald, of TANGS Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.
2. The facts of been agreed by her.
3. They show that on 9 March 2015 the defendant was stopped by police officers outside Diamond Hill MTR station. They conducted a search on her and found eight resealable plastic bags, each containing a resealable plastic bag, and those were containing white crystalline solids.
4. This was later confirmed as being a total of 50.9 grammes of a solid that contained 31.44 grammes of ketamine (the drug) and these were found from a pink wallet stored in the red handbag the defendant was carrying.
5. The defendant was immediately arrested and cautioned.
6. Under caution, she confessed she was helping a person called Ah Leung carry the ketamine to earn money and asked for a chance.
7. She later conducted a longer video recorded interview on the same day and admitted in more detail that she was to deliver the drug which she knew was ketamine on behalf of Ah Leung for $600 per day. She gave one of the bags to a woman and received a $500 note, which had been seized from her, and one of the mobiles that was found upon her was used to contact Ah Leung.
8. She had two mobile phones on her and cash of $1,610.
9. There are a total of 31.44 grammes of the drug and the value of the ketamine seized is said to be $3,961.44.
10. The defendant admits that she possessed the drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
11. The defendant’s antecedents have been admitted. She has one previous conviction for possession of a dangerous drug and that occurred in 2010, when she received a fine or $3,000. This is, of course, a suspended conviction for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, but is relevant for these proceedings.
12. The defendant is aged 35 years old. She was employed part time at the time of her arrest.
13. Mitigation has been advanced on her behalf and her background has been outlined by counsel. She is 35 years old, studied to Form 3 level. Her parents were divorced when she was young. She has other family: a brother and a sister, who are both married. She has been in employment and worked as a casual part-time waitress.
14. She has advanced some reasons for the commission of the offence. She says that her family has never had large resources in terms of finances, that they are a close-knit family, that her younger sister suffers from an illness called thyrotoxicosis and had an operation about 2013, and the health condition of her younger sister has deteriorated and a suggestion is being made a second operation is appropriate. A doctor has been found for surgery, but the expenses would be expensive if she did not go to the public system.
15. The defendant advanced the reason for mitigation that she wants to share the burden of the younger sister’s expenses and was committing this offence at least partly for that reason.
16. There are letters from family members who have written in support of her. I have read those.
17. The family is also present today to support the defendant.
18. Further mitigation advanced is as follows, that the defendant made frank admission and has been co-operative since the time of her arrest. She has indicated to plead guilty to the charge at an early stage to save court’s time. She is clearly remorseful and she is part of a close-knit family who support her, and she asks the court to accept that her motivation is not entirely selfish: some of the money or all of the money would have been for her sister’s operation.
19. Nevertheless, that is not an appropriate way in which to earn money for anything.
20. As far as sentencing is concerned, there are clear guideline sentences for the trafficking in drugs. In terms of the trafficking in ketamine, a guideline sentence is contained in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.
21. The quantity of drug trafficked by the defendant is 31.44 grammes. This falls in the range between 10 to 50 grammes of the drug, where the sentencing range is between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.
22. The calculation of where the defendant’s sentence should lie on that continuum is not entirely determined by the quantity as a mathematical exercise.
23. I also should bear in mind factors such as the defendant’s relatively good record, with only one conviction a number of years ago; the fact that she is otherwise a person of good character; and that she is well supported by her family, so the risk of her reoffending would be not too high; and she should receive some benefit from the allocation of the sentence on that guideline or the determination of that sentence on that guideline.
24. A mathematical calculation would put the sentence in the middle of the range of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.
25. Taking into account all the factors that have been put forward by the defendant and her remorse and early plea of guilty, what I shall do is take a starting point for sentence at 54 months’ imprisonment.
26. The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount from that sentence.
27. By my calculation, that is a further 18 months of discount, which leads to a sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment, or 3 years’ imprisonment.
28. That is the sentence I will impose.
| |
(T Casewell) |
| |
District Judge |
|