HKSAR v. Fan Tsz Ting

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 148/2017 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.

1. The Defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug (Charge 1) and possession of a dangerous drug (Charge 2).

Cites 2 cases

Case No.DCCC 148/2017
Court
District Court
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 148/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 148 OF 2017

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  FAN Tsz-ting  

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

Before: HH Judge E. Yip
Date: 1st November 2017 at 10:06 am
Present: Mr Timmy YIP, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
  Mrs HO Patricia Ann, of M/s Daly, Ho & Associates assigned by DLA for Defendant
Offence:  [1] Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
  [2] Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug (Charge 1) and possession of a dangerous drug (Charge 2).

2.On the night of 10/12/2016 the Defendant was passing the customs departure hall at Hong Kong – Macau Ferry Terminal when she was searched and found to have in her knickers a plastic bag wrapped in tissue.  The plastic bag contained 50 plastic packets of 9.97 g of a solid containing 9.27 g of cocaine.  She had $1,726 cash with her.  Under caution she said she was to deliver the cocaine to Macau for a reward of $3,000, $1,000 of which had been received by her in advance, and that she had some “Ice” at home for her own consumption.

3.A house search of her premises in Mong Kok yielded 2 packets of the drug “Ice”, narcotic weight 0.47 g in total, 2 straws, a lighter, and a glass tube, among other items.  Under caution, she admitted having the “Ice” for her own consumption.   

4.The estimated street values of her cocaine and “Ice” were $10,179 and $160 respectively. 

5.She is aged 25.  She had one previous record for simple possession of a dangerous drug but none for drug trafficking.  She has very little or no family support as her mother and stepfather are not seeing her.  She had attended Zheng Sang College for drug addiction treatment but did not complete the course.  She left there for reasons, upon which I do not feel necessary to enlarge, not entirely due to her own part.  Afterwards, she reconnected with her bad peers, who led her to commit the present drug trafficking offence. 

6.There are two mitigating letters from her teachers in Zheng Sang College.  They hope she will get a lenient sentence.  Notwithstanding that, she is and will be very much on her own.  Trials and errors may put her on the right track but this is a matter of unknown prospect.  One can only hope she has learned a lesson from the present court experience. 

7.The sentencing guidelines for trafficking below 10 g of cocaine indicate 2 – 5 years (Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342; R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370). 

8.I take a starting point of 4 years 6 months for Charge 1.  The starting point for Charge 2 is 12 months.  I give her a one-third discount for her timely pleas of guilty.  She has no other mitigating factors.  The sentence is 3 years for Charge 1 and 8 months for Charge 2.  By totality, I order them to be served concurrently.  The overall sentence is 3 years. 

  (E. Yip)
  District Judge