She has also admitted the Summary of Facts prepared by the prosecution. I now read out the summary for the record:
“Acting on information, a team of police officers attached to Yuen Long DSDS conducted an anti-dangerous drug operation at Tung Tau Wai area, Yuen Long from the morning of 22 May 2013.
At around 1915 hours that day, PC 7708 (PW1) observed a Chinese male, Lee Peter, enter the unit at the ground floor, Tung Tau Wai, No 16 Wang Lok Street, Yuen Long (“the premises”). PW1 followed Lee and revealed his identity. Following entry, other persons were found seated on a sofa at the living room. The defendant, Chinese female Chan Chui-man (aged 26 at the time) was found seated on a bed inside Room B. Another female was found inside Room A.
A search was conducted of Room B. PW1 noticed one of the two keys inserted in the lock of the drawer of a closet inside Room B. The two keys were the same and chained by a key-ring. PW1 opened the drawer and found the following:
(a) A purple iron box containing 12 plastic bags of suspected ketamine.
(b) A transparent plastic box containing 14 plastic bags of suspected ketamine.
(c) A transparent plastic box containing 10 plastic bags of suspected "Ice" and 19 plastic bags of suspected cocaine.
(d) A black plastic bag containing 33 tissue paper packets of suspected ketamine.
(e) An electronic scale.
(f) 341 transparent resealable plastic bags.
(g) A dehumidifier.
(h) $1,710 in cash.
(i) A pink straw.
PW1 arrested and cautioned the defendant for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. In reply, she said: ‘Being penniless, I intended to make quick money to help support the living by selling the dangerous drugs. Do give me a chance’.
A further search was conducted of Room B. A tenancy agreement and four keys were found in a desk inside the room. The tenancy agreement showed that the defendant was the tenant of the room from 30 January 2013 to 29 February 2013. The four keys consisted of a key to the iron gate, a key to the main door of the premises and two keys to Room B.
The defendant was taken to Yuen Long Police Station for inquiries. A post-record of the defendant’s arrest was prepared.
Between 0214 hours and 0238 hours on 23 May 2013, a video-recorded interview was conducted with the defendant at Yuen Long Police Station. Under caution, she admitted the following:
(1) The packages seized from the drawer inside Room B contained dangerous drugs, namely ketamine, cocaine and methamphetamine.
(2) She obtained the dangerous drug from a person known as ‘Ah Ting’. Ah Ting is a female aged 27. She did not have any means to contact Ah Ting.
(3) Ah Ting would call the defendant every Tuesday to ask her whether she wanted to buy dangerous drug. On 21 May 2013, the defendant bought from Ah Ting the dangerous drugs seized. Ah Ting went to the premises and the defendant then led Ah Ting to Room B for the transaction.
(4) The defendant purchased 200 grammes of ketamine and small amounts of cocaine and methamphetamine from Ah Ting for several thousand dollars.
(5) She bought three different types of dangerous drug so that she could provide a choice for her customers. She packed the dangerous drug into different packages herself. These could be sold at different prices.
(6) Her customers would go to the premises to find her. The defendant would then lead her customers to Room B for the drug transaction.
(7) She could earn $1,000-odd from selling drugs found inside the drawer..
(8) She did not have any means to contact her customers.
(9) The persons inside the premises who were present when the police arrived did not know that she was keeping the dangerous drugs inside Room B.
(10) The defendant was the only person who had the key to Room B and the drawer containing the drugs.
During the VRI - that means the video-recorded interview - the various exhibits seized by the police were shown to the defendant and she explained their usage.
Inquiries were made of the other persons found inside the premises, all of whom claimed they had no knowledge of the drugs.
The drug exhibits were examined by Government Chemist, Dr Kwok Nai-chiu (PW7), and found to consist of the following:
(a) 5.09 grammes of a solid containing 3.23 grammes of cocaine.
(b) 2.43 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.39 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
(c) 200.38 grammes of a solid containing 160.78 grammes of ketamine.
The street value of the dangerous drugs was estimated at $32,003.”
Since there are three different kinds of dangerous drug involved, there are at least two approaches to deal with sentence, namely the individual approach and the combined approach. The individual approach is to look at each component of the cocktail or batch and then to sentence by adding up the different sentences relevant to each individual drug. The combined approach involves the calculation of the applicable sentence for the more or most serious drug in terms of potency, then to take into account significant quantities of other and less serious drugs.
Whichever approach is appropriate depends on the circumstances of the case, though the combined approach will often be the better one to enable the judge to sentence fairly, realistically and in a commonsense manner (see the case referred to by Mr Melwaney, HKSAR v Yeung Hang Kong, HCCC 56/2011 (14 September 2011, unreported), and the case referred to by Mr Leung on behalf of the defendant, HKSAR v Cho Hoi Kit CACC 170/2012 (21 September 2012, unreported), and generally, see Cross & Cheung, Sentencing in Hong Kong, page 680, under paragraph (14).
I will first check the sort of sentence that the defendant may face by using the individual approach. At page 679 of the same book, Cross & Cheung, under paragraph (13), the authorities on trafficking in cocaine are referred to and the authors state that the customary sentence is aligned to the guidelines for trafficking in heroin contained in The Queen v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370.
For trafficking up to 10 grammes, the customary sentence is between 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment. The mathematical approach for the quantity of cocaine in the present case, ie, 3.23 grammes of narcotic content, will produce a figure of about 2½ years’ imprisonment.
For trafficking in "Ice", Cross & Cheung, at page 682, paragraph (19), states the customary sentence for up to 10 grammes as being 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment. Again, mathematically, the narcotic content of 2.39 grammes of "Ice" in the present case will result in a figure of about 3 years.
Regarding ketamine, Cross & Cheung deals with it at page 682, paragraph (20). For trafficking in 50 to 300 grammes, 6 to 9 years would be appropriate. So mathematically, the 160.78 grammes of narcotic content should generate a figure of about 7½ years.
If one adds up all the figures for the three kinds of drug, one would reach a figure of 13 years. That seems on the high side for the quantities of drugs found in this case as a whole.
However, it is crystal clear, as admitted by the defendant, that she intended to sell the various quantities of drugs to her customers who knew what she had to offer. Her counsel, Mr Leung, has told the court that she consumed 0.15 of a gramme of "Ice", 1 gramme of cocaine and 3.5 grammes of ketamine per day. But the defendant chooses not to have a Newton inquiry on this issue if the court does not accept it.
I do not accept these large quantities of consumption per day, although I accept that she is a drug addict. She is doubtless a peddler, albeit on a small scale. She presented herself as a necessary link in this heinous trade and it is the type of people in the trade that make drugs readily available to the end users. Her record of possession of dangerous drugs do not help her to receive a lenient sentence from the courts. She was an addict and apparently trying to sell drugs in order to feed her habit and that was at the expense of spreading the evil amongst others.
Her counsel has said everything that could possibly be said for her. She has expressed her remorse through a letter to me. Her mother has also shown her support for her. But all of these are not considered as having any mitigating effect on this grave offence. I am however prepared to be as lenient as I can to her by adopting a starting point of 9½ years’ imprisonment. There are no other mitigating circumstances.
The defendant is, however, entitled to a one-third discount for her guilty plea. In the result, she should go to gaol for 6 years and 4 months and this is the sentence I pass.