HKSAR v. KWOK KA YEE, KAREN

DCCC 371/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 371 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This defendant was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs (Charge 1), pleaded not guilty to trafficking but pleaded guilty to possession of the drugs in Charge 1. She also on the first day of trial pleaded guilty to the 2nd charge, possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug.

2.  I will repeat the drugs in Charge 1 involve 9.74 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 9.56 grammes of “Ice”, 34.53 grammes of a solid containing 19.42 grammes of ketamine, and 0.08 gramme of a powder containing ketamine.

3.  After trial, I acquitted the defendant of trafficking that amount of “Ice” and ketamine but convicted her of possession of “Ice” and ketamine on her own plea. 

4.  I adjourned for a drug addiction treatment centre report.  Today the report recommends drug addiction treatment centre. The report says the medical officer is of the opinion that the defendant is a drug dependent after interviewing her.

5.  The defendant is a persistent drug offence offender and has six previous convictions for possessing dangerous drugs.  The defendant has been sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre order on two previous occasions, in 1995 and 2008.  Essentially, the defendant has been on and off dangerous drugs since 1995, over 20 years.  The defendant’s previous drug history involves heroin, Rohypnol, “Ice” and ketamine.

6.  When the defendant was released from the last drug addiction treatment centre order of 2008, the defendant said she did not relapse until 2015.  When arrested, she was consuming on a daily basis $100 worth of ketamine and $100 worth of “Ice”.  That is an expensive drug habit that was financed unknowingly by a boyfriend.  I heard his evidence during the course of trial and have had a letter from him in mitigation.

7.  The defendant has been in custody since her arrest in January 2016.  The defendant therefore obviously would prefer me to consider a term of imprisonment for possessing this quantity of drugs.

8.  The contents of the report are not disputed but the fact she is still drug-dependent is. 

9.  I will not repeat the defendant’s background.  I referred to it in my verdict. Perhaps the most pertinent part of the defendant’s background is her husband who needs her to care for him on a constant basis.  He has been described as bedridden; is certainly wheelchair-bound and requires constant care because of organic brain syndrome.  The defendant and her husband are recipients of CSSA. She does not work because of the need to care for him on a constant basis.  He is now in a care home.

10.  I can see that there are family and friends in court to support the defendant as well as her husband.  I have had a letter from the defendant, and I have considered its contents.  What is my concern is what would be an appropriate sentence for possessing a significant quantity of “Ice” and ketamine. 

11.  I have taken the report into account.  In my view, rehabilitation is an essential element in sentencing.  If a drug addiction treatment centre report recommends treatment for what is essentially a disease, I will rarely find otherwise.  There is no treatment for drug dependency, be it physically or psychologically in a prison setting. 

12.  Therefore, having considered mitigation and the report, I will order for Charges 1 and 2 a drug addiction treatment centre order, both to be served concurrently.