HKSAR v. Wong Tsui Mei

DCCC 1028/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1028 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1, trafficking in a dangerous drug.  The drugs of that offence involve 15.86 grammes of a solid containing 7.59 grammes of ketamine.  That amount of ketamine is worth $2,739.

2.There was a 1st defendant in this case who faced a possession of dangerous drugs charge.  However, she has absconded before plea and a warrant of arrest has been issued but to date not yet executed. 

3.The facts of this case are that on 9 August 2016 police officers spotted the 1st and 2nd defendant together.  When the defendants saw the police, they turned to walk in a different direction. This immediately aroused the suspicion of the police and their suspicions proved to be very accurate.  They stopped and searched the defendants and in the 1st defendant’s hand, they found a plastic bag containing ketamine, and in the 2nd defendant’s bra she had hidden six resealable plastic bags containing ketamine.  That is the ketamine of Charge 1.

4.Moreover, in her handbag, she had an electronic scale, a straw and 71 small empty resealable plastic bags.  These items are commonly used for packing drugs into bags.  These six bags containing ketamine had Chinese characters written on the bags and one of the bags bore the 2nd defendant’s name.

5.The best mitigation today is the defendant’s plea. 

6.She is 38 years old and has not been in trouble with the police before; she had a clear record.  Her arrest for such a serious charge has been a shock to her family especially her mother. 

7.I have had letters of mitigation from the defendant’s mother and her elder sister; both ask for leniency on her behalf.

8.I have been told in mitigation that the defendant is a single mother.  She has two children aged 12 and 9 under her care.  Her husband left the family home over three years ago and does not regularly contribute to the family.  In fact, the defendant has worked long before he left the family home to support her and her children.

9.I have been told from the letters and by the defendant that she is a loving mother and a filial daughter.   She is very proud of her children and is distraught that she has disappointed them and her family.  Her mother who is not in good health nor has full mobility is now the full-time carer of the two children.  

10.I have been told the defendant frankly co-operated with the police after her arrest.  When I consider that and her plea, I accept the defendant is genuinely remorseful.  She has promised not to reoffend nor let her family down again.  As a mother of two young children, her first priority must be her children.

11.I have been told she turned to dangerous drugs to relieve the stress of financial pressure as well as to relieve the constant pain of an old spinal injury she sustained at work some six years ago.  That injury led to even more financial pressure as she was no longer able to work in a job which required her to stand for any long period of time. 

12.I hope now she realises that those friends that she frankly admits tempted her, led her to take dangerous drugs and supplied her with dangerous drugs to take to a party to deliver to others were only using her as a drug mule.  If the defendant does not put distance between her and those so-called friends, she will not stay away from dangerous drugs and will very, very likely end up in court again.  Then she becomes a statistic, a lost cause and useless to her children.  That would be a tragedy. She could single-handedly ruin her children’s futures.  I hope that is the reason I hope she keeps her promise to stay away from these people, drugs and will not reoffend.

13.There are guidelines for trafficking ketamine and I have referred myself to the authority of The Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323.  In that authority the Court of Appeal are of the view that where between 1 to 10 grammes of ketamine is trafficked, a 2 to 4-year starting point would be appropriate.  Here we have 7.59 grammes of ketamine which should attract a starting point of 3 years and 6 months. 

14.There is another angle to the defendant’s mitigation and that is part of the dangerous drugs was for her own consumption at this party; one of those bags had her name on it.  The prosecution is neutral as far as this mitigation is concerned. 

15.Because of the mitigation I have heard and the fact one bag had her name on it, I accept that part of the drugs would have been for her own consumption.  

16.I have referred myself to the authorities of HKSAR v Chow Chun Sang [2012] 2 HKLRD 1121 as well as HKSAR v Tsang Chung Keung CACC 165/2014.  The Court of Appeal is of the view that where a sentencing court accepts that part of the drugs was for self-consumption, a discount of between 10 to 25 per cent could be taken off the starting point to reflect that mitigation.  What percentage would be appropriate would depend on the facts of each case. 

17.Here, even though I accept that she would take some at the party, she also had on her person paraphernalia for packaging and dividing up drugs.   She went prepared to weight and pack drugs if necessary.  So the latent risk that some of her own drugs in the bag with her own name on it would go to others or be sold to others was a very real risk. Because I am of the view that the latent risk here is real and very possible, I would only consider a conservative discount for this ground of mitigation.

18.Defendant, please stand up.

19.After hearing all mitigation put forward, your background, the facts of the case, the quantity of drugs and lastly your previous clear record which is unusual for someone of your age for her first offence to commit such a serious offence, I will take a starting point of 36 months, that is 3 years.

20.I will, from that starting point, give you a discount of 4 months to reflect that part of the dangerous drugs would be for your own consumption.  That is a discount of just over 10 per cent.  That would reduce the starting point to 32 months. 

21.You have pleaded guilty and entitled to a further discount for that plea.  I would reduce that 32 months’ starting point by 14 months.  After that discount is applied, for Charge 1, you are sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.