HKSAR v. LU JINMEI

DCCC 973/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 973 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of trafficking in this matter and that is to the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, totally 13.64 grammes of a powder containing 11.13 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The defendant has admitted the facts and I have convicted her accordingly.

3.  The facts are unremarkable, that they contain the following:  that the offence occurred on 27 July last year and the defendant was departing from Hong Kong to Mainland China at Lo Wu Control Point.  In order to do so, she would pass through the Immigration Clearance and Customs Departure Hall.  She was carrying a recycle bag and a semi-transparent plastic bag with her.  She was intercepted at the Customs Departure Hall and searched, and the dangerous drug particularised in the charge was found in her possession and that was in a plastic bag carried by her.

4.  Government chemists confirm we are at a total of 11.13 grammes of ketamine, with a street value of $1,719.

5.  All those facts were admitted by the defendant.

6.  Her antecedents have been put before the court. She is of clear criminal record.

7.  She is now aged 38 years of age.  She is the holder of a two-way permit.  This two-way permit is endorsed for employment, so she was working in Hong Kong and she has been detained since her arrest in July last year.

8.  Mr Tsang has put before me the personal circumstances of the defendant.  We know she has a clear record.  She is a mother of two children.  She has two daughters aged 13 years and 9 years old. Her family live in Shenzhen; she is from Shenzhen herself.

9.  In order to improve the life of her family, particularly her daughters, she works and she has worked all the time, as I understand.

10.  She has admitted she has a job most recently at an elderly home in Hong Kong as a caretaker and it is said on her behalf that her taking up this employment is in order to help pay for the school fees of her two daughters, one of whom, the eldest, is in a boarding school in Shenzhen, and the cost of her sending, she needs RMB16,000 in order to pay for that, and a further RMB6,000 for her younger daughter as well.  As a result of her working in Hong Kong, she has been separated from her family and only saw them once every two weeks.

11.  She asks for leniency.  There are letters provided in support of her and she expresses remorse.

12.  In determining the sentence, I bear in mind that she is a lady of clear record and it is always difficult for a family when a mother of children comes to be sentenced for a criminal offence and it is difficult for the children, of course, to live without the society of their mother as she undergoes a prison sentence and the defendant by her plea today has conceded that the drug that she had and was taken through the Customs at that time was for the purposes of trafficking in that drug.

13.  Now, there are what are described as tariff sentences for the purpose of sentencing people and those tariffs are based on the quantity of drugs that they are trafficking in, and those tariffs are designed to provide a uniformity in sentencing of people who commit these kinds of offences.  It would be seen to be in the interest of justice for like offenders to receive like punishments.

14.  Now, in this case, I have to sentence a hardworking mother of two, who, as I have said, whose children would be deprived of her while she serves her prison sentence.

15.  These are not grounds for substantially departing from any tariff sentence.

16.  Now, the quantity of drug I am concerned with here is 11.13 grammes of ketamine.  This falls within the band of 10 to 50 grammes of the drug and the guideline sentence for this quantity of drug is between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

17.  Now, having regard to the sentence in this case, the quantity of drug brings this into the lowest part of that range of sentencing.

18.  I will adopt the lowest figure - that is, of 4 years’ imprisonment (or 48 months’ imprisonment) - and the defendant is entitled to the discount for that, of one-third of that (which is 16 months’ imprisonment) to be deducted from the figure of 48 months’ imprisonment.

19.  This gives a final sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment, after deduction for one-third.

20.  That is the sentence of the court.