HKSAR v. CHAN KA PUI

DCCC 839/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 839 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty today to one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

2.  The drug involved is 27.15 grammes of a solid containing 15.51 grammes of ketamine.

3.  The facts of this case are straightforward.  The police obviously had the defendant’s home in Oi Shun House, Yau Oi Estate, Tuen Mun, under observation.  At about 8.18 pm on 16 July this year, the police observed the defendant returning home. They continued to keep the premises under observation, and at about 8.40 they saw the defendant leave her premises.  As she stepped out, the police intercepted her.

4.  The police entered the defendant’s home with the defendant and found two plastic bags of ketamine on a table in the living room.  Besides the ketamine, there were a number of empty transparent plastic bags, two plastic spoons, a bucket with $2,930 cash, a mobile phone, and pen and paper with details of sales recorded on the paper.  All these items are paraphernalia and evidence of drug‑trafficking activity.

5.  The defendant admitted to the police that all the items, including the drugs, belonged to her.  Under caution she fully co‑operated with the police and admitted that she sold ketamine to make money.

6.  The agreed value of the ketamine involved is $3,421.

7.  The defendant’s best mitigation today is her plea of guilty.

8.  The defendant is 29 years old and is not a woman with a clear record.  She has seven previous convictions, of which six relate to possession of dangerous drugs, and in the past 15 years, the defendant has served probation orders, drug addiction treatment centre orders, as well as a term of imprisonment.  Despite this history, the defendant is still a drug addict.  According to the records, the defendant’s last conviction was in September this year, where she was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre order for possession of dangerous drugs.

9.  In mitigation I have had an explanation. I have heard the defendant lives with her mother and needs to support her mother financially.  When working, the defendant can provide for her, but before this offence was committed she lost her job as a waitress, became desperate, and turned to selling ketamine to make money.  This is the defendant’s first trafficking conviction.  I have two letters of mitigation, one from the defendant and one from the defendant’s mother.  I have taken the content of both letters into account.  The defendant’s mother is in court today to support her.

10.  There are guidelines for trafficking ketamine set down by the Court of Appeal, and the relevant authority is Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  In that authority, the relevant guideline for this case is where between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, a starting point of between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.  I repeat the ketamine in this case is 15.51 grammes.

11.  I have taken into account that authority and guideline, the mitigation put forward and the letters received, as well as the facts of the case and the quantity involved.  After consideration of those relevant factors, I will take a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment.

12.  Defendant, you pleaded guilty.  You are entitled to a discount of one‑third.

13.  Therefore, for this offence, you are sentenced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.