HKSAR v. LAI SHUK YEE, ZOE

DCCC 843/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 843 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The particulars are that on 24 June, outside the meter room near Room 707 on the 7th Floor of Tsui On House, Tsui Ping (North) Estate, Kwun Tong, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 162.6 grammes of a powder containing 83 grammes of ketamine.

2.  The facts of this case are straightforward.  On that date, at about 4 am, the defendant was seen by police officers acting suspiciously outside the electric meter room of that 7th floor.  She was seen opening the padlock for that meter room.  The police then stopped and searched the defendant.  The police found in the defendant’s handbag six bags of ketamine.  That is the ketamine of this charge.

3.  Under caution, the defendant told the police that she was asked by “Ah Chi” to hide the ketamine in the meter room for a reward of $500.

4.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, she expanded on her admission and told the police she knew the drugs she was to hide was ketamine.  She had picked up the drugs and the key to the meter room from a flowerbed nearby as instructed by “Ah Chi”.

5.  It is quite common for ketamine or drugs to be hidden in meter rooms or behind fire hydrants of public housing estates.

6.  It is an Agreed Fact the ketamine was worth approximately $21,200.

7.  The defendant’s best mitigation is her plea of guilty.  Mr Lau has said all he can on her behalf in mitigation. 

8.  The defendant is 34 years old and not a woman with a clear record.  She has 10 previous convictions obtained over eight court appearances.  In this criminal record, there are no similar convictions for trafficking dangerous drugs.  However, there are two drug-related convictions in 1999.  However, I do note that in 2005, 2007 and 2011, the defendant was sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre for offences of dishonesty.  Yet in mitigation, I was told that she had not been taking drugs for many years but had relapsed only earlier this year.  She started to take ketamine again from earlier this year because she had a job that was physically demanding.

9.  I have had two letters of mitigation, one from her present employer.  She had started this job in March this year in a snack shop in Mongkok.  She was earning $7,000 a month.  Her employer has said that she was a good employee and worked hard.  The employer goes as far as saying that when the defendant is released, she would consider continuing her employment.  The other letter is from the defendant’s mother who says that the defendant, despite not being academic, tried hard to make her own way and would give her family money when she could.  Her mother says that she accepts the defendant is truly remorseful and will continue to offer her support.

10.  I have been told in mitigation and it is in the defendant’s antecedent that in fact she was fully employed for many years from 1998 to 2010, but from 2010, she found it hard to get full-time employment. 

11.  There is a Court of Appeal guideline where trafficking ketamine is concerned, and I have referred myself to the Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  The court of Appeal were of the view that where between 10 to 50 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, a 4-to-6-year term of imprisonment would be appropriate, and where between 50 to 300 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, an appropriate term of imprisonment would be between 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment.  Mathematically speaking, the 83 grammes of ketamine here would attract a starting point of 6 years and 4 to 5 months.

12.  Defendant, please stand up.  I have taken into account the defendant’s plea, and I have taken into account that despite an obvious drug history, this is the first conviction for trafficking dangerous drugs, and I have taken into account everything said in mitigation.  I have also considered the amount of drugs in this case and the guidelines as set out by the Court of Appeal. 

13.  After careful consideration, I will take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of one-third.  After that discount is applied, the defendant for this offence is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.