COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a dangerous drug, namely 5.15 grammes of a powder and a solid containing 3.09 grammes of ketamine and she had also pleaded guilty to the 2nd charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 12.20 grammes of a solid containing 11.50 grammes of cocaine and 330.61 grammes of a powder and a solid containing 102.54 grammes of ketamine. She had been committed to this court for sentencing.
The Summary of Facts show that on 15 July, police officers conducting an anti-dangerous drugs operation saw the defendant at around 9.37 pm, coming out from the premises in Yuen Long. She was intercepted and found from her pocket were two plastic bags containing the drugs which is the subject matter of Count 1. Also found in a pocket was two keys, cash of HK$4,550 and a mobile phone. Under caution, the defendant said that the two packets of ‘K Chai’ were for her own consumption.
Police officers used one of the keys seized from the defendant to open the door to the premises. Inside a room in the premises was found a box on the living room table containing $19,040 cash. Also found inside a cupboard in the kitchen in the premises were the drugs which are the subject matter of Count 2. It is of note that these drugs were kept, some separately in plastic bags and some in a plastic box. Also found on the premises were two electronic scales containing traces of a solid which did not contain any dangerous drugs and a plastic box containing a pile of plastic bags.
The defendant was therefore arrested for trafficking in the dangerous drug and under caution, she admitted that the drugs found in the kitchen cupboard were to be sold by her and that the woman that was found inside the premises when the police opened the premises with the keys found on the defendant was her girlfriend and her girlfriend knew nothing about these drugs.
In a video-recorded interview subsequently, the defendant admitted that the electronic scales and plastic bags and a spoon found in the premises were for packaging the drugs. She said that when someone wanted to buy the drugs, she would then measure and package the drugs and then place the drugs packaged by her under a tree outside the premises. The seized cash found inside the premises was her reward for storing the drugs at her home.
The estimated retail value of the drugs, the ketamine was in the region HK$79,911; the estimated retail value of the cocaine seized was in the region of HK$13,823.
The defendant is aged 36 and she has one previous conviction for possession of dangerous drugs in August 2016 for which she was sent to a drug addiction treatment centre.
In mitigation, Mr Yeung has read out a letter from the defendant basically saying that she is remorseful for what she had done and that she will turn over a new leaf. This court certainly hopes so because if the defendant continues in the way that she has, there is not much hope for her future.
It is clear from the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal that when sentencing for different types of drugs, the court should add the amounts together and sentence as if for one type of drug, and this is in the case of HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong, CACC 318/2013. In this case, the total amount of drugs in the 2nd count is 114.04 grammes and the larger amount is the 102.54 grammes of ketamine. The sentencing guideline for ketamine has already been laid down in the case of Hii Siew Cheng in 2008.
As for cocaine, it should be sentenced under the heroin guidelines. I agree with Mr Yeung’s submission that since the ketamine is the larger amount, I should sentence as if for ketamine but raising the starting point to take into account the amount of cocaine.
Therefore, taking into account what I have just said, I agree that the starting point in Count 2 should be one of 9 years’ imprisonment after trial. Giving the full one-third discount for the plea would reduce the sentence to 6 years. I also take into account the fact that I do accept that the defendant may be tempted to take from some of the ketamine for her own consumption, although I do not accept it would be a substantial portion. However, any reduction for that fact would be offset by the aggravating factor that she committed these offences whilst on bail for the offence of possession of dangerous drug previously.
So having said all that, I consider, therefore, that on the 2nd count, the defendant should be sentenced to 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
In the 1st count, I will adopt a starting point of 15 months and giving the defendant the full one-third discount would reduce the sentence to 10 months. But as I said, there is the aggravating factor of having committed these offences whilst on bail for the other offence of possession of dangerous drugs. So I will increase that sentence by 1 month to 11 months.
Having considered the totality principle, I consider that both sentences should be served concurrently. So the defendant will go to prison for 5 years and 9 months in total.